Highly detailed Anti Polygraph research

[EosJupiter]

NoNombre,

Thanks for more grist to the mill .... interesting observations Hmmmmm.

Regards

[187Dick]

Eos,
     I'm not sure why you started modifying my statement to make it seem I was stating things that I neither wrote or believe.  Your previous postings led me to believe you don't usually stoop to that type of debate tactic.  I do not believe that taking a polygraph makes anyone a better police officer.  I believe it's an additional screening tool and nothing more.  
     What I do know about pre employment polygraphs is that I have seen many applicants show attempted deception and then admit to some very serious crimes in thier backgrounds in the very areas they indicated deception.  I have also seen a number of them have criminal charges brought against them for thier admissions.  I'm not talking about drug related crimes.  These are people who thier background investigators swore would have no problem getting past the polygraph and would be ideal candidates for the police academy.  
     If other agencies or states don't use the polygraph as a screening tool for new hires, I wouldn't even condemn their beliefs or practices, and I certainly would not criticize any of thier officers.  
     I also want to respond to the person who posted that countermeasures were physical and not mental.  When I posted regarding the evolutionary process and trying to mentally override it, I was actually responding to a different posting.  I am well aware of physical countermeasure actions, and I won't argue that they can occasionally work; however, well trained, experienced polygraphers can spot most of them without too much difficulty.  Every trick in the book is just as available to the polygraph community as it is to the visitors of this website.
     I stand by everyting I have posted here.  The reason I post here is two fold.  First, I enjoy the debate.  The more we debate this topic, the better I understand all aspects of it.  I can get knowledge from from books and pro polygraph sites, but from here I can get wisdom.
     Second, I know that many of the people who visit this site are innocent people preparing to take their first exam.  I know it's very stressful, but I hope they don't feel like they need to employ countermeasures to pass the polygraph test.  It's as simple as telling the truth.  If you disagree with me, let's debate it.  

We shall talk again!

[EosJupiter]

I'm not sure why you started modifying my statement to make it seem I was stating things that I neither wrote or believe.  Your previous postings led me to believe you don't usually stoop to that type of debate tactic.  I do not believe that taking a polygraph makes anyone a better police officer.  I believe it's an additional screening tool and nothing more.  

187Dick,

I didn't modify your comments, I can only change my own postings. Not sure which statements you think I changed. If you think I did then my humble apologies, you have been a most gracious debater. Always clear and concise.  I just referenced that your arguments do not hold water in states that do not polygraph, nomore.

Regards  

[Mr. Mystery]

187Dick,

You write in part:

Because I gather you know your standard craft and understand how countermeasures are applied, I am left wondering if the aforementioned quoted material is merely disinformation for the naive reader.  Of course you realize that the utilization of countermeasures has nothing to do with suppressing responses or over-riding ANS responses, BUT has to do with PRODUCING responses to control/comparison questions.  

The amateur polygraphers come to this site and spew out complete falsehoods (the polygraph is 98% accurate, countermeasures never work, etc).  The truly devious polygraphers come here and mix in carefully chosen lies with truth.

[187Dick]

Mr. Mystery,
     Skilled polygraph examiners are very well trained on how to identify the use of countermeasures.  A first time examinee who goes into an examination attempting to use countermeasures either has something to hide or is a fool.  Unfortunately there are people on this site who would advise that very action.  I have stated before and I cannot stress this enough, if you have nothing in your background that would disqualify you for the position you are applying for, just go in and tell the truth.  Hundreds of thousands of people have been hired for doing exactly that!
     This is not trickery.  You can pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.  If I had a friend preparing to take a polygraph exam, that is exactly what I would tell him or her.  It's good advice.

[Sergeant1107]

You can pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.

I believe we are all aware that you CAN pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.

What would make the polygraph a useful instrument is if you WILL pass the polygraph by telling the truth.

In my experience that simply isn't true.  I told the truth on four exams and failed three times, each time for a different reason.

[Mr. Mystery]

187Dick,

A truly devious polygrapher would acknowledge that false positives do occur.  He would then give a song and dance about how these issues are cleared up after further testing.  I must say I appreciate the fact you remain civil.

Let me offer an example of innocent examinees who had something to fear from polygraphs:

I've taken several and passed, I've failed one.  The silly thing is that I answered the same questions in all of them.  If I told you what some of my control questions are you'd probably laugh.

Fair Chance is a poster on this web site.  I believe he failed 2 FBI polygraphs and finally passed the last one.  It took him over a year to resolve everything.  He couldn't have been lying on some tests and telling the truth on another.

I personally know people who have failed at one federal agency and then passed at another.  The same questions were asked each time.

Go to www.911jobforums.com and read the story posted by engineertofed.  He passed several polygraphs with various agencies and then failed two with the FBI.  There are other posters on that web site who fall into this category also.

Polygraphers are pretty sensitive when it comes to anyone questioning them.  A user named perplexed posted his experience both on this website and at the polygraphpace.com message boards.  The funny thing is that polygraphplace seems to have removed his original posts.  I'll let people draw their own conclusions.

Finally, even John Ashcroft acknowledged that there is a 15% false positive rate. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/03/ag030101.html

Page 145 of the NAS's report "Polygraphy and Lie Detection" states "There is no evidence that mental countermeasures are detectable by examiners".  The report is available for around $40 on half.com.

I know Honts wrote some more about the proportion of examinees who use countermeasures in 2002.  If anyone knows what he wrote please post it.

A more accurate statement would be "70 to 80 percent of innocent examinees have nothing to fear.  20 to 30 percent of deceptive examinees have nothing to fear either.  Passing one polygraph is no guarantee of passing another one.  If you fail you may get a retest but be ready to go through 6 to 18 months of hell to finish the process."

[Mr. Mystery]

I believe we are all aware that you CAN pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.

Your wit never fails to make me laugh.

[Mr. Mystery]

A polygraph measures responses that are not visible to the eye, and people still think they can somehow override those responses by controlling their thinking.  Perhaps one in a hundred is good enough to do that, but for the other 99 it leads to failing the polygraph exam.  

187Dick,

If you can find a Vegas bookie that will give me 99 to 1 odds on being sucessfull with countermeasures please let me know.  I'd mortgage my house to bet on those odds.  I doubt you'd mortgage yours on being able to catch me.

[187Dick]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that false positives do occur; however, painting a general brush across the entire polygrapher community by quoting generalized statistics of false positives (Which are not verified and may be quite exaggerated) lacks the foundation of a good arguement.

My assertion is that the better trained polygraph examiners have far fewer false positives due to well laid foundations during the pretest interviews.  Additionally, false positive problems are addressed during the administering of the tests and also by conducting thorough post test interviews.

The worst thing that can happen during a polygraph examination is a false positive.  Ethical examiners do everything within thier control to ensure that does not happen.  Remember, all polygraph examiners do not have the same training.  While I do not like to criticize other polygraph examiners, I will state this:  If I were seeking employment and was compelled to take another polygraph exam, I would hope that the examiner was not trained at DoDPI.  

I can also say this, I believe employing countermeasures to pass the polygraph test is extremely less reliable than telling the truth during the test.  It's not a perfect system, but it is the most reliable one available.  

[Mr. Mystery]

 If I were seeking employment and was compelled to take another polygraph exam, I would hope that the examiner was not trained at DoDPI.  

Now you've got my interest.  What makes you say this regarding the DoDPI?

[187Dick]

Mr Mystery,
     If you are ready to mortgage your house to put up as collateral because you are so certain you can beat a polygraph by using countermeasures, I think you should do that.  I can tell you that I won't take that bet, but I am certain that if you put up $500,000.00 (The estimated value of my house) as a bet to any polygraph examiner who can catch you using countermeasures, I am sure you will either be very rich, or very poor in a very short period of time.
     Of course, you would then have to determine the type of test to be conducted (Which I would immagine would be a singe issue test which is the most accurate of all polygraph tests).  I don't think the intensity of the target issue would be too much of a problem since you would have $500,000.00 at stake, but you would know the relevant questions about that single issue ahead of time, so it would almost not matter what the relevant questions addressed.
     Then there would be the matter of making you countermeasure attempts recorded prior to test.  You would have to write down exactly what counter measures you were going to use and when you were going to employ them.  If the examiner concluded deception regarding the single target issue on his charts, he may zero out control question responses that he suspected counter measures were being used.
     This creates another problem, I'm certain you and he would dispute the location and type of countermeasures being used.  He would accuse you of employing countermeasures you did not list and you would deny it, saying that he had made a mistake or the instrument had recorded something not related to the questions or the test.  Experts would have to be brought in to determine who was telling the truth.

Sounds like the job for another polygraph examiner!  

[187Dick]

     All I will say about DoDPI is that the developers of that system do not seem as concerned about false positive responses being a problem, as I and many of my colleages are.  My opinion is that the top concern of any polygraph examiner should be avoiding false positive responses.  Unfortunately, DoDPI is a Federal institution and like most federal government agencies, they do not handle criticism very well.  I also believe that if they would admit that their system was not the best, and look at other approaches to model after, the entire polygraph community would benefit.  (As well as the innocent people being brought in for polygraph examinations by DoDPI trained polygraphers).
     I know my answer is vague; however, there is a continuing effort within the polygraph community to educate the top people at DoDPI and this is not the proper time or place to allow that debate to occur.  Think of it as a closed door meeting of the attorneys out of the presence of the jury.

[Sergeant1107]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that false positives do occur...  It's not a perfect system, but it is the most reliable one available.  

In my opinion, the first statement quoted above turns the second one into nonsense.

Once you acknowledge that false positives exist I believe it renders the entire polygraph process worthless.  This is a completely different issue than the accuracy of a polygraph.

If there were no such things as false positives then the polygraph would at least have some value, even if it were not 100% accurate in detecting deception.  Then if you had a subject who "failed" you and everyone else would know it was because the subject was being deceptive.  If the subject passed there would still be some doubt as to whether they were being deceptive, since the accuracy of the polygraph has never been claimed to be 100%.

However, once the possibility of a false positive comes up, all results become meaningless.  A "DI" result could mean that the subject was deceptive, or it could mean that the subject was truthful but is registering as a false positive.  An "NDI" result could mean that the subject was not being deceptive, or it could mean that the machine and its operator were simply not accurate enough to detect the subject's deception.  At the end of the test you don't know any more than you did at the start.

I agree that the polygraph is not a perfect system.  In fact, I believe it doesn't function as it is intended to at all, except by accident.  Calling it the most reliable system available is a nonsensical statement.  A system that does not work but has been around a long time and has gained some degree of acceptance is no more valid than a brand-new system which few people accept and which also does not work.

At one point in history I am fairly certain that some scientists thought phrenology was an unreliable method of determining a person's potential criminal proclivities.  I am also fairly certain that other scientists responded to such criticism by saying that phrenology was the best method available and until something better comes along they were going to keep using it.

[187Dick]

Sergeant,
     There is a flaw to your logic.  Using that logic, we could say that the judicial system in the United States is flawed because innocent people have been inprisoned; therefore, we should abandon the system and just rely on what?  God to administer justice?
    You could also say that doctors misdiagnose illnesses all the time (I'd venture that this is much more common than false positives in the polygraph field); therefore, we should do away with the medical profession and just let our bodies heal themselves.
    Now we could argue statistics back and forth, and both of us could provide numbers from reliable and valid studies to show the effectiveness of the polygraph, but I believe the debate is weakened.  I prefer a common sense approach.  The problem is how do you know when someone is lying about an important issue.  One of the solutions is to use an istrument that has proven the abiltiy to detect physiological changes in a persons body that are related to the fear of detection of deception.  It may not be perfect, but there is nothing else that comes close.  Your solution is to abandon the practice because it is not perfect and I disagree with that logic as I pointed out.  I see it as a tool that is very useful when used properly by a well trained and ethical examiner.  
     I am not yet ready to let everyone out of prison because the criminal justice system is not perfect.