Loose Lips by Claire Berlinski

[random]

A must read for anyone seeking a career with CIA. Excellent book, very factual and brilliantly written.

Here's the part about the poly:

QUOTE
I arrived for my polygraph, in another unmarked building in the suburbs of Washington, with apprehension. The polygrapher came to the waiting room to fetch me. He and I walked together to the polygraph chamber down the hall and exchanged pleasantries about the weather. He then spent a great deal of time emphasizing to me how scientific the polygraph was, making it sound like electron microscopy. I listened politely. He discussed the questions he was planning to ask: Had I ever committed a major crime? Had I ever attempted to gain unauthorized access to classified information? Was I working for a foreign intelligence service? I nodded to signify that I understood.

I was confused. These questions seemed to be perfectly reasonable lines of inquiry. But there should have been, according to my research, a relatively trivial question among the others, one designed to evoke a lie - Have you ever told an untruth  to a supervisor? Have you ever stolen office supplies? That was where to manifest the strongest response, if you wanted to pass. But his questions concerned issues with which the government would legitimately be concerned. Oh what the hell, I thought, I'm an honest woman. These questions are easy. I'll just hope for the best.

The polygrapher strapped me to the chair and hooked me up to the electrodes and the breathing monitor. The chair was ample and squishy, actually quite pleasant. He switched on the device, intoning the questions in a hypnotic voice. When he asked me the question about my criminal history a second time, I suddenly wondered whether that might be the control question. After all, everyone breaks a few laws now and again. Afraid that I would fail if I didn't have a strong reaction to something, I made a sudden decision to seal my mula banda, as the yogis might say.

When it was over, he left the room, saying he needed to review my results. I knew from my research that he was doing no such thing; he was leaving me alone to increase my anxiety prior to the interrogation, the interrogation being the real point of the polygraph. The tactic worked; I was anxious. I sat there by myself, uncomfortable and apprehensive, nervously picking my nose until I realized that I was doing so in view of the pinhole camera on the wall before me. I put my hands to my side and straightened myself.

The polygrapher returned to the room. He sat down across from me and stared at me, his thin lips peevish and cold.

"Selena, we seem to have a problem here," he said.

That was exactly what I'd read he would say. This was where, had I been lying, I was supposed to realize that the polygraph had trapped me and spill my guts. If I hadn't been lying, I would simply be puzzled.

"Problem?" I asked.

"You showed a very strong reaction one of the questions. Do you know which one it was?

"Er, no, I'm afraid I don't," I said. You lamentable witch doctor.

He leaned in and glared at me, eyes inches from mine. "The question was whether you've ever committed a major crime."

Oops. Yep, that's where I squeezed, alright. I guess that wasn't a control question. "I don't understand that. I've never committed a major crime," I answered.

"Well, the charts don't lie. The charts are scientific. There's got to be some reason they're telling me that you haven't been 100 percent with us today."

Yes sir, there is. I was squeezing my sphincter when I answered that question. "Well, perhaps I was a little nervous? Could we try that again?"

"This isn't something you just try until you get it right, Selena. This is science. The machine is a carefully calibrated scientific tool, and it is telling me that you have something you need to get off your chest."

Wrong body part, Colombo. I was angry with him and furious with myself. This would have gone fine if I hadn't been, literally, a smart-ass. I explained again that I hadn't lied, the irony of it being that I really hadn't; and he explained to me that the charts never lie, and back and forth we went until he agreed to hook me up again. This time, I abandoned all scientific experimentation. When I left, he was still muttering over the charts.

In all, I calculated that my chances of getting a security clearance were no better than half. It took them another three months to adjudicate my case, three months in which I ran to the phone every time it rang, like an impatient lover. When the call finally came, I had almost given up hope. But when the call did come at last, they told me I had been cleared to the Top Secret level. And as I said, to this day I have no idea how I slipped through.
UNQUOTE

Read more about it at http://berlinski.com/looselips/chpt1.htm

[Public Servant]

This little anecdotal piece from this book underscores the foolishness of using counter-measures -- with a new reason.  You might be enhancing your response to a relevant question...

I'm surprised she got a second chance without some sort of admission or explanation.  If I was the examiner, I'd have been more open to a second series if she just admitted she was mis-informed, mistook the question for a control, and was attempting counter-measures.    

And lo and behold, when she just took the test as it was intended, she passed!!

Thanks for the contribution, Random.

[Poly-Killer]

Public Servant,

Manipulating the responses at the inappropriate time(s) is certainly not the way to "pass" a poly.

That doesn't guarantee, however, that a person will "pass" by simply telling the truth.

Best,

PK

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

The above passage is no vindication of polygraphy. It appears that "Selena" went in expecting a probable-lie CQT but was treated to a relevant-irrelevant "test" -- a thoroughly discredited technique that has even less plausibility as a diagnostic technique than the CQT. (If I am not mistaken, the relevant/irrelevant technique was the CIA's stand-by technique for screening purposes before the Aldrich Ames affair, after which the CQT was adopted.)

Selena erred in mistaking a relevant question for a "control." This is indeed a risk associated with countermeasure use, and it is for this reason that we devote a good portion of Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to a discussion of how to differentiate between "control" and relevant questions.

With regard to polygraph countermeasures, the take home lesson from the above passage is 1) that the anal sphincter contraction was effective in producing a "significant reaction" and 2) that the CIA polygraph operator was unable to tell that the reaction was deliberately produced.

Was your statement that, "If [you were] the examiner, [you'd] have been more open to a second series if she just admitted she was mis-informed, mistook the question for a control, and was attempting counter-measures" deliberate misinformation? Any applicant who admits to countermeasure use during a CIA pre-employment polygraph examination can expect to be disqualified from CIA employment.

It's also worth noting that CIA polygraph operators frequently confront applicants with the bad news that "we seem to have a problem here" during their initial polygraph séance. If the applicant makes no disqualifying admission(s), he/she is scheduled for a follow-up round.

[Public Servant]

George,

With regard to polygraph countermeasures, the take home lesson from the above passage is 1) that the anal sphincter contraction was effective in producing a "significant reaction" and 2) that the CIA polygraph operator was unable to tell that the reaction was deliberately produced.

The first flaw in this assumption is that likely why it wasn't suspected to be a manipulate, is you'd never expect anyone to be foolish enough to attempt to increase response to a relevant question.  

Secondly, Perhaps the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact.  

Bottom line it's not to say if the passage is true, much less draw factual conclusions with just the examinee's account.

Was your statement that, "If [you were] the examiner, [you'd] have been more open to a second series if she just admitted she was mis-informed, mistook the question for a control, and was attempting counter-measures" deliberate misinformation?

No deliberate attempt at mis- or dis-information.  Whether it was misinformation as it pertains to CIA policy, I cannot say -- not my agency (cross one off one from the list from those trying to figure out my identity).

As you surely recall, I am a criminal investigator, not a screener.  My only concern is whether the examinee is, or is not, involved in the commission of the felony in question.  My point was that I'd need some substantial reason to give a second series on the same issue.  I have confidence in the exams I run and wouldn't just say (after a DI result), "OK, you've denied enough, let's throw out that series and try again." No one has confidence in the test at that point.  

On the other hand, even if someone said they failed because they got bad advice, or screwed up in carrying it out, I'd still be there to get to the truth (not just interrogate--nothing to gain from that if he/she is innocent).  Again, I'm confident I could adjust, and formulate an exam which would yield accurate results.

One thing is for sure, if this passage is true, the examiner was quite open-minded and morally courageous in giving "Selena" a second chance.  No doubt he had to go at it with his supervisors for submitting opposing results on consecutive series, with no admission/explanation in between.  He must have had a gut feeling that she should have passed and followed this instinct.  This surely does not fit the usual description of examiners on this site (Way off from most of Beech's descriptions of me).

Regards.

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

You write in part:

The first flaw in this assumption is that likely why it wasn't suspected to be a manipulate, is you'd never expect anyone to be foolish enough to attempt to increase response to a relevant question.

True, but if a deliberate anal sphincter contraction produced a tell-tale tracing that polygraphers easily recognize -- as many in the polygraph community would have us believe -- then polygraphers should recognize it regardless of whether it appears in connection with a "control," relevant, or irrelevant question.

[Saidme]

George

The take home lesson from the above passage is:  

Perhaps the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact.

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

That's not a take home lesson. It's wild conjecture.

[Saidme]

George

Apparently not since he ran another series lacking admissions/confessions.

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

The fact that the polygraph examiner "ran another series lacking admissions/confessions" in no way supports the conclusion that "the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact."

What point are you trying to make?

[Saidme]

Point I'm trying to make is that you (or I) just don't know what prompted the additional series.  Is it possible the examiner detected artifacts allowing additional testing without admissions/confessions? Possibly.  You (or I) just don't know.  So be careful about the "wild conjecture."

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

Perhaps, as a law enforcement investigator conducting specific-issue polygraph examinations in criminal investigations, you do things differently, but in pre-employment polygraph examinations, it is not at all uncommon for a subject to be subjected to a second chart collection for the same question series when he/she has made no disqualifying admission after the first series. This was, in fact, my own experience with the FBI.

In the CIA and NSA it appears to be standard operating procedure for polygraphers to confront subjects with the bad news that "there seems to be a problem" after the first round of chart collections, and then to conduct a second chart collection if no disqualifying admissions have been made.

So your suggestion that "Perhaps the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact" is no "take home lesson" but rather unlikely (though perhaps not altogether implausible) conjecture.

Your suggestion that the polygrapher may have suspected the reaction was an artifact is contradicted by the fact that he interrogated the subject as to why she reacted to the question involved. Clearly, the polygrapher took the reaction for a significant, scorable one.

Is it common polygraph practice to re-categorize significant reactions as "artifacts" when a subject makes no admission?

[Saidme]

No, it is not.  

[Public Servant]

George,

Something definitely gave the examiner a reason to run another exam (if this is a true story).  Therefore, while the pro-poly assertions on this thread might be conjecture, they are not necessarily "wild" conjecture.  At least no wilder than your conjectures on the matter.

Regards.

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

What kinds of things might have given the examiner a reason to conduct a second chart collection? As Saidme has acknowledged, it is not common polygraph practice to re-categorize significant reactions as "artifacts" when a subject makes no admission.