Loose Lips by Claire Berlinski

[Canadian Crusader]

A spike on the charts coinciding with a relevant question is proof (in the pro-poly realm) of deception is it not?  If a polygrapher saw a spike to a relevant question such as undetected major crime, would they not take that to the bank and grill the examinee for an admission during the post poly interogation?

Also, Public Servant, are you telling us that you would give the examinee a second chance if he/she admitted to using countermeasures?  Please!  Why would you continue to waste your time after obtaining such a disqualifying admission from someone clearly trying to beat your machine?   Would you not shut the machine off, walk them out of the room and write a big FAIL on their chart?

[Public Servant]

George and Canadian Crusader,

An admission of some sort that could explain the response to the relevant question could cause me to offer a second series.  

I would never consider a DI without confession the result of artifact.  I would consider something that looked like an artifact, or occurred during a known artifact causing incident (movement, noise, cough, etc), an artifact.  A DI without a confession, otherwise is just that, a DI.  Most artifacts don't occur over and over at particular questions; unless the artifact is a deliberate act-- ie. counter-measures.

And yes, I would give another exam in the scenario cited, if the examinee admitted to CMs.  If they were silly enough to CM on a relevant, there should be even less concern that they could actually "beat" the test.  Then I could either catch them in a lie outright, or clear them on the relevant issue (with a footnote in the file that they weren't the sharpest tool in the shed, nor of the highest integrity).  The purpose of the exam is to get to the truth on the relevant issue.  The decision of suitability for the job (in this scenario) is up to the adjudicator to whom the examiner suppies all the facts he obtains.

Honesty is still the best policy, especially when you are trying to get hired to a government agency.

Regards.

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

Let's suppose an examinee admits to you that he/she used countermeasures and you decide to do a re-test. You now know that the examinee understands the function of the probable-lie "control" questions. On what rational basis do you expect a truthful examinee to respond more strongly to the "control" questions, and a deceptive examinee to respond more strongly to the relevant questions?

[Marty]

Public Servant,

Let's suppose an examinee admits to you that he/she used countermeasures and you decide to do a re-test. You now know that the examinee understands the function of the probable-lie "control" questions. On what rational basis do you expect a truthful examinee to respond more strongly to the "control" questions, and a deceptive examinee to respond more strongly to the relevant questions?

Indeed, this is a common theme as it really is a fundamental problem and requires the polygrapher's to switch to a different approach or bamboozle the examinee into thinking a control really is a relevant. This area fascinates me which is why I am looking into the general psychology of persuasion with respected exponents such as Cialdini, and other, less respected (in academe) but perhaps more adept practitioners such as Rowland.

A critical QC measure is (I would assume) determining the percentage of applicants that are familiar with the CQT. While giving every applicant an extensive GKT should go a long way to establishing this statistic, it would interfere with the CQT screenings. OTOH, a pair of GKT questions, tacked onto each CQT, would provide the supervising QC folks with this statisitic and allow them to track this vs other variables such as applicant technical background, etc. to establish guidelines as to when other approaches such as DLT should be used instead.

Such a limited sampling of GKT questions would be close to worthless as an indicator for an individual candidate, and shouldn't be individually scored,  but over the course of hundreds of exams, should converge to a significant metric.

This would also provide a way for the polygraph community to actually measure a part of the impact of sites such as this.

-Marty

[orolan]

Marty,
The idea of GKT questions tacked on to the end of a CQT seems to have merit, but what would you ask? Just curious, as usual.

[Marty]

Marty,
The idea of GKT questions tacked on to the end of a CQT seems to have merit, but what would you ask? Just curious, as usual.

I would use names or nomenclature specific to this site or William's site that would be highly recognizable to informed applicants but infrequently recognizable to uninformed ones. There are significant complexities to executing such a program (especially examiner bias) but it should be doable. It's important to remember that such a limited set really shouldn't be used in any way to score the examinee. Ideally, responses to the GKT Q's should be recorded electronicaly and sent to QC without the examiner even being in the loop.

-Marty

[orolan]

Marty,
"Countermeasures" would be highly recognizable, but you would run the risk of a false+ if the examinee had a military aviation background or enjoyed fighter-sim computer games. Site-specific questions involving the actual site name would probably be rejected hands-down, because the examinee probably would come here immediately after the test to see what all the excitement was about, and then might learn the truth. Can't see the poly crowd allowing that to happen.
The idea of the examiner not seeing the results of the GKT questions sounds good, but the logistics seem impossible. In my two polys, the examiner sat there looking at the screen on his laptop, I assume at digital representations of charts being printed out elsewhere (I don't know, because I never saw one).
It would be difficult for him not to see the last two responses when reviewing the rest of them.

[Marty]

Marty,
"Countermeasures" would be highly recognizable, but you would run the risk of a false+ if the examinee had a military aviation background or enjoyed fighter-sim computer games.

Absolutely. Totally inappropriate GKT question.

Site-specific questions involving the actual site name would probably be rejected hands-down, because the examinee probably would come here immediately after the test to see what all the excitement was about, and then might learn the truth. Can't see the poly crowd allowing that to happen.

Me neither. Also not a good idea for a GKT. There are a fairly good selection of candidate questions though, assuming an examinee has done enough research to understand the issues. For the ones that have not, they are likely not going to be able to deploy CM's effectively.

The idea of the examiner not seeing the results of the GKT questions sounds good, but the logistics seem impossible. In my two polys, the examiner sat there looking at the screen on his laptop, I assume at digital representations of charts being printed out elsewhere (I don't know, because I never saw one).
It would be difficult for him not to see the last two responses when reviewing the rest of them.

The technology available these days makes this sort of thing feasible, at least amongst the larger organizations. It doesn't need to be done by all of them, just enough to obtain the demographics. I don't see any evidence they are doing this but they are clearly concerned. I assume that these issues are being looked at one way or another but who knows. The research in CM's has been classified for the last decade or so (according to Kleiner).

-Marty

[Public Servant]

Let's suppose an examinee admits to you that he/she used countermeasures and you decide to do a re-test. You now know that the examinee understands the function of the probable-lie "control" questions. On what rational basis do you expect a truthful examinee to respond more strongly to the "control" questions, and a deceptive examinee to respond more strongly to the relevant questions?

George,

There are formats that do not use CQT.  In fact, looking at the excerpt from this book, I don't think the exam mentioned was CQT.  Makes it even more humorous that she was practicing such countermeasures...

Marty,

I like the thought process on your ideas of incorporating GKT.  Are you applying for a research position at DoDPI?

Just a small aside in regard to this:

I would use names or nomenclature specific to this site or William's site that would be highly recognizable to informed applicants but infrequently recognizable to uninformed ones.

I have one concern.  The man who shot up his co-workers in AL last week was named Doug Williams (presumably it was not our friend the "stinger").  This name is also shared by a former Super Bowl hero for the Redskins (obviously not the "stinger").  Possible sources for a false positive to such a GKT?!...Hard to say for sure.

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?

Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?

[Marty]

George,

There are formats that do not use CQT.  In fact, looking at the excerpt from this book, I don't think the exam mentioned was CQT.  Makes it even more humorous that she was practicing such countermeasures...

I was also amused by the story for the same reasons. Interesting and somewhat intense personality.

I have one concern.  The man who shot up his co-workers in AL last week was named Doug Williams (presumably it was not our friend the "stinger").  This name is also shared by a former Super Bowl hero for the Redskins (obviously not the "stinger").  Possible sources for a false positive to such a GKT?!...Hard to say for sure.

ROFLMAO, I nearly mentioned the same thing myself! It would be intriguing to see what the time frame and recognition rate of the Doug Williams name would cause. Seriously, it would be ill advised to use the same terms in a GKT set given each individual. Assuming a reasonably large question set it would be fairly easy to identify and discard material fluctuations in the stochastics given a reasonable population sample size.

I am by nature an engineer-entrepreneur (therefore private sector - lol) and am always looking for ways to improve things. I rather like Drew's area of work, which looks to be a potentially improved GKT. I also truly think the GKT would be a lot more reliable in forensic work if somehow the examiners could be trained and critical mass reached. It is very natural to fall back on what one knows and no doubt CQT examiners have a strong gut belief in their abilities, warranted or not. Speaking of deluding oneself, so called "quants" and traders in the capital markets are such a group rife with them - the psychology is fascinating. And they tend to be quite bright.

-Marty

[Marty]

Public Servant,

I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?

Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?

Ah, that's the rub. The reason the PLCQT is so widely done is that it is considered the most reliable technique available applicable to screening. Presumably then, knowledge, in and off itself, reduces the effectiveness of the polygraph as the examiner reverts to a less desirable and less practiced protocol. Reminds me of a Fed. Civil Statue I ran across that specifically ordered that a jury was not to be informed of a specific portion of said statue.

Directed ignorance. How nice.

-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

The question I asked you on the 13th was not a rhetorical one, but rather one of fundamental importance for the polygraph field. What polygraph technique (if any) do you think would be appropriate for a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?

[Saidme]

George

Knowledge of CQT wouldn't necessarily cause an examinee problems (meaning the examiner could still use it).  Knowledge about a technique and the technique being performed on you are two entirely different affairs.  

Knowledge of a surgical procedure you're about to undertake and surgery being conducted on you are two totally different scenarios.  I don't care how much reading your criminals on this site do, it's not going to properly prepare them for their examination.  I believe deep down you know that to be true, particularly in light of how much study you've conducted regarding the topic.  

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

If the subject admits to knowledge of the function of the "control" questions, then even by CQT theory, there is no rational basis for the expectation that truthful subjects will respond more strongly to the "control" questions while deceptive subjects will respond more strongly to the relevant questions.

Public Servant understands this, I think, which is why I've asked him which technique, if any, he believes would be appropriate for use with such subjects.