Are polygraphists that naive

[James Spencer]

Are polygraphists naive enough to think that they are not being beat by countermeasures every single day.  If one uses common sense, it is not hard to see this.  Look at how many times George's book has been downloaded, not to mention  Doug William's manual.  It is simple math.  Look at how many polygraph examintions are conducted on the daily basis(a modest estimate of several hundred) and one can safely assume that many of the people who showed "no deception", achieved these results through the use of countermeasures.  Obviously not everyone who passes their polygraph by using countermeasures is going to share this information with anyone,and most surely will not post about it on websites neither. The vast majority who beat the polygraph will simply thank their lucky stars, or should I say George Maschke, and move on with their lives.  I wish polygraphists who conduct exams for police pre-employment could know how many people beat them at their own stupid game.  This way we would'nt have to read their overly confident and often arrogent posts about how countermeasures don't work.  All I can say to them is WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!

[Marty]

James,

Hi. I downloaded TLBTLD out of pure curiosity. I don't expect to ever take one however. I was just curious. Hard to say how many others have done the same.

Interesting stuff, eh?

-Marty

[polycop]

Are polygraphists naive enough to think that they are not being beat by countermeasures every single day.  If one uses common sense, it is not hard to see this.  Look at how many times George's book has been downloaded, not to mention  Doug William's manual.  It is simple math.  Look at how many polygraph examintions are conducted on the daily basis(a modest estimate of several hundred) and one can safely assume that many of the people who showed "no deception", achieved these results through the use of countermeasures.  Obviously not everyone who passes their polygraph by using countermeasures is going to share this information with anyone,and most surely will not post about it on websites neither. The vast majority who beat the polygraph will simply thank their lucky stars, or should I say George Maschke, and move on with their lives.  I wish polygraphists who conduct exams for police pre-employment could know how many people beat them at their own stupid game.  This way we would'nt have to read their overly confident and often arrogent posts about how countermeasures don't work.  All I can say to them is WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!

James,

As an experienced polygraph examiner trained in counter-measure detection I can assure you of two things:

1.  It is still extrodinarily difficult to "beat" a properly trained polygraph examiner.  We really do know what to look for (and we learn more all the time).

2.  People who attempt countermeasures are caught each and every day.  I cannot say they are ALL caught, so I guess it goes back to being a bit of a dice roll for the polygraph subject.  However, those who are caught are typically confronted and usually confess to their stupidity.  

Now the folks on this site like to profess that it is "impossible" to catch countermeasures.  To that I would suggest they look at all the countermeasure courses and lectures that are attended by the polygraph community.  I assure you that each and every lecture contains a number of "case studies" to include detailed analysis of confirmed countermeasure attempts.  If we truly can not catch the idiots who are attempting the methods taught in the publications you talk about, where are all these confirmed cases coming from?  Are you ready to allege the cases are all lies?  Is this really one giant "conspiracy?"....

Poly-Cop

 

[james]

Poly cop, thanks for your professional and courteous response.  I definately see your point, however I feel that many people who are tested for a police officer position routinely score no deception indicated when in fact they lied about relevant issues.  If one uses logic, he/she can surely see this is very possible.      

[Marty]

James,

As an experienced polygraph examiner trained in counter-measure detection I can assure you of two things:

1.  It is still extrodinarily difficult to "beat" a properly trained polygraph examiner.  We really do know what to look for (and we learn more all the time).

2.  People who attempt countermeasures are caught each and every day.  I cannot say they are ALL caught, so I guess it goes back to being a bit of a dice roll for the polygraph subject.  However, those who are caught are typically confronted and usually confess to their stupidity.  

Now the folks on this site like to profess that it is "impossible" to catch countermeasures.  To that I would suggest they look at all the countermeasure courses and lectures that are attended by the polygraph community.  I assure you that each and every lecture contains a number of "case studies" to include detailed analysis of confirmed countermeasure attempts.  If we truly can not catch the idiots who are attempting the methods taught in the publications you talk about, where are all these confirmed cases coming from?  Are you ready to allege the cases are all lies?  Is this really one giant "conspiracy?"....

Poly-Cop

Poly-Cop,

There has been some discussion on countermeasure detection before and I for one would be the last to assert they are always undetectable.  If I recall, one of the discussions involved the applicability of the respected GKT polygraph, normally not usable in screening, in detecting awareness of countermeasure related information. Combined with a denial of having such information, it might be used to produce a DI, at least relative to the awareness of such. Care to comment?

-Marty

[Mr. Truth]

Now the folks on this site like to profess that it is "impossible" to catch countermeasures.  To that I would suggest they look at all the countermeasure courses and lectures that are attended by the polygraph community.  I assure you that each and every lecture contains a number of "case studies" to include detailed analysis of confirmed countermeasure attempts.  If we truly can not catch the idiots who are attempting the methods taught in the publications you talk about, where are all these confirmed cases coming from?  

That stuff may sell within the polygraph community, but it does not sell in the scientific community. Granted, you may catch people who make an obvious effort to alter a chart (radical change in breathing pattern, movement, swallowing, whatever) and confess to it when challenged, but I know from personal experience that use of countermeasures, when applied intelligently, are undetectable.

With respect to a control question, you have no idea whether I am reacting to CQ because I feel guilty/know I am lying or because I am spiking the question, and that is the bottom line: you don't know, you have no way of knowing, and you will never know unless I confess to having used a countermeasure. The scare tactic ("we have ways of knowing") may work on some people and discourage the use of countermeasures, but you can be rest assured there are plenty of people who know better. You think all those scientists at Los Alamos are as dumb as rocks and are going into the polygraph believing that crap actually works? You are in denial.

[Marty]

....I know from personal experience that use of countermeasures, when applied intelligently, are undetectable.
..... but you can be rest assured there are plenty of people who know better. You think all those scientists at Los Alamos are as dumb as rocks and are going into the polygraph believing that crap actually works? You are in denial.

Mr. Truth,
LOL. Fortunately for the polygraph community the scientists in the DOE don't represent a high percentage of those polygraphed. It's almost instinctive for them to learn as much as they can and it is clear from public testimony that it is nearly universally despised and considered degrading. I wonder what percentage of them express awareness of CMs? I wonder if polygraphers even ask them or whether they both just go with the program in a sort of mandated charade. One hopes the security folks don't depend on the polygraph much.

-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

James,

As an experienced polygraph examiner trained in counter-measure detection I can assure you of two things:

1.  It is still extrodinarily difficult to "beat" a properly trained polygraph examiner.  We really do know what to look for (and we learn more all the time).

In peer-reviewed studies by C.R. Honts and collaborators, about half of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction, and even properly trained and highly experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. (See the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for citations.) In addition, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was not convinced that polygraph "testing" is robust against countermeasures.

So why should we believe you?

2.  People who attempt countermeasures are caught each and every day.  I cannot say they are ALL caught, so I guess it goes back to being a bit of a dice roll for the polygraph subject.  However, those who are caught are typically confronted and usually confess to their stupidity.

Considering the large number of polygraph examinations conducted on a daily basis, it is hardly surprising, and of no statistical significance, that some might admit to countermeasure use when accused.

It should also be noted that the polygraph examination itself is a dice roll for the subject: it has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against the truthful. Countermeasure use is arguably less uncertain, because the methodology used for scoring the "test" is known.

Now the folks on this site like to profess that it is "impossible" to catch countermeasures.

Not true. What is being argued is that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. Detection means identification at better than chance levels.

To that I would suggest they look at all the countermeasure courses and lectures that are attended by the polygraph community.  I assure you that each and every lecture contains a number of "case studies" to include detailed analysis of confirmed countermeasure attempts.  If we truly can not catch the idiots who are attempting the methods taught in the publications you talk about, where are all these confirmed cases coming from?  Are you ready to allege the cases are all lies?  Is this really one giant "conspiracy?"....

Again, that a number of case studies have been documented in which individuals accused of countermeasure use admitted to such does not establish an ability to detect countermeasures (just as the fact that some individuals accused of deception have admitted to such does not prove that polygraphy detects deception).

[Marty]

In peer-reviewed studies by C.R. Honts and collaborators, about half of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction, and even properly trained and highly experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy.  ....

George,

If memory serves, that study included runthroughs on actual polygraph machines. Wasn't there also another study where accurate instructions were given but only 15 minutes of practice allowed that showed CM's had little effect? It would seem realistic practice is quite important.

-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

Marty,

That is Honts' conclusion. However, I believe that he goes beyond the evidence of his research. See A Criticism of Honts' Testimony on Countermeasures.

[Marty]

Marty,

That is Honts' conclusion. However, I believe that he goes beyond the evidence of his research. See A Criticism of Honts' Testimony on Countermeasures.

George,

Yes, even a half hour is pretty short though being exposed to the polygraph machine as part of it likely took away much of the aura and made it easier for the persons to apply countermeasures, even with such a short exposure.  Based on the the various stories here it is pretty clear the key is for the examinee to be familiar enough with it that they are not buffaloed as examinees.  I wonder what the literature says about people who have undergone multiple polys over the years. One would think it becomes increasingly inaccurate, even without any CM knowledge.  Pretty near impossible to do quality research on though.

Also, did you by any chance follow "Bubba's" posts? They seemed quite illustrative and one doesn't often get a chance to have a conversation with a puzzled examinee who hasn't read up on the poly.

-Marty