A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures

[pailryder]

Lethe

Thank you for the clarification.  The answer to your question is yes,  if you are otherwise truthful and lie only to protect yourself from a false positive result.  Chapter 4 TLBTLD

[Lethe]

Lethe

Thank you for the clarification.  The answer to your question is yes,  if you are otherwise truthful and lie only to protect yourself from a false positive result.  Chapter 4 TLBTLD

Now, are you offering that just to be provocative and kick around ideas (which is legitimate) or do you really believe that yourself?  Please clarify if this is indeed your own position.

But, let us analyze your statement on the merits and see what its implications are.  You seem to be saying the only legitimate purpose for lying (to get a job of trust and authority) is to protect yourself from wrongfully being denied said job.  Stop me if you disagree, but I think we can rephrase that claim of yours as follows: it is okay to lie on an employment screening exam if (1) you tell the truth on all the relevant questions and (2) lying increases your chance of passing that phase of the hiring process.  Would you say that is a fair rephrasing of your statement?  If not, please indicate where I go wrong.  And please do tell us if the position you have stated is actually your own and, if not, what your own position actually is.

[pailryder]

Just to be provocative.  You and I know it is never ethical to deceive in order to gain a position of trust.  That is catch-22, the contradiction that we use to attempt to elicit CQ response from the knowledgable, informed, truthful subject.

[Lethe]

Just to be provocative.  You and I know it is never ethical to deceive in order to gain a position of trust.  That is catch-22, the contradiction that we use to attempt to elicit CQ response from the knowledgable, informed, truthful subject.

I have encountered few superior examples of a catch-22.  If you lie, you're dishonest and shouldn't get the job.  But if you don't lie, you can't be tested and so won't get the job.  You know, before the polygraph came along, lying was considered a bad thing, especially when done to get a sensitive position.  Now, in one of the polygraph's chief contributions to society, that type of activity is perfectly okay--if it serves the interests of the polygraph.

I see no way out of the contradiction for you.  You say it is not okay to lie, but you pass people all the time who do just that.  How do you explain this?  Also, do you have any way to discriminate between the person who refuses to lie because he has something to hide and the one who refuses to lie because he doesn't?  

Also, I don't think your explanation is convincing with regards to informed subjects.  You seem to be saying that the examinees thought process would be something like the following:

(1) I shouldn't lie, lying is wrong;
(2) I especially shouldn't lie to get an important, sensitive job;
(3) And certainly not while on a lie detector!
(4) But I must lie to get the job!
(5) Does not compute!  I'm so stressed and anxious about this [control question]!

However,  think, for the informed subject, it is more like this:

(1) Yeah, he's trying to get me to lie, just like I knew he would;
(2) I'm not a very good liar? Speak for yourself, buddy!
(3) This is so lame, does anyone really believe this stuff?  Like any agency would have a single employee if this was true.
(4) Okay, control question, I'm supposed to lie now.
(5) Okay, this one is relevant, tell the truth.  
(6) Another control question.  "Oh, no.  I've never done that."  Yeah, but I would like to thank the Academy...

In short, I fail to see how a truly informed subject is going to be so stressed out at the control questions, as he or she must be for the thing to work.  If someone tells me they'll give me a hundred dollars if I say the sky is purple am I going to produce a result that says "deception" with the same reliability as the guy who thinks he's going to be fired if he doesn't lie and if he's caught lying?  I don't think so.  And if I'm wrong, then there's no reason for all the secrecy about how the polygraph works, it can be brought out into the light and many people who are tempted to use countermeasures won't.

I wonder what percentage of the Amish would lie to pass a polygraph exam?  I think we can assume that they, at least, have never visited this website.  But I suppose that would tell us more about the Amish than about the polygraph.  Still, it would be interesting, albeit a bit exploitative.  (And since the Amish have been able to forgive even that guy who murdered several of their daughters--they even donated money to his widow and children--they get a pass from me.)

Also, out of curiosity, has there been any research done on whether the gender of the polygrapher could influence results, say if the examinee is a female sexual assault victim and the polygrapher is male?  I understand that many women after a rape find it very difficult to trust and form healthy relationships with men, it seems that could introduce an unfortunate variable that could create additional noise on the polygraph.  Just wondering if there is any such effect and, if so, what measures are taken to eliminate or minimize it.  (Polygraph Place would probably be the place to post this question, but it'd take forever to get an answer, I suspect, if I ever could; those guys are suspicious of everyone)

[Sergeant1107]

Another catch-22 that has been posted on this board before is that any candidate who consciously controls his breathing and remains calm during the polygraph exam, even if he is telling the complete truth and not withholding any information, is judged unethical for trying to manipulate the results of the test.
However, if the same candidate fails to consciously control his breathing and reactions during the post-test interrogation, and instead allows himself to react normally to the accusations of deception, the raised voices, and the confrontational atmosphere, he is then deemed to be unsuitable for law enforcement because he can't handle stress well enough.

Of course, the candidate is never told beforehand when he should exhibit his stress-handling abilities and when he is forbidden from doing so.  

[pailryder]

S1107

I agree with you that controled breathing is no sure sign of CM.  Many people learn to control breathing in Lamaze class, martial arts, yoga meditation, marksmanship, diving. the list is endless.  It is a difficult issue that must sometimes be addressed because it can interfear with colection of data.

[Lethe]

Also, I don't think your explanation is convincing with regards to informed subjects.  You seem to be saying that the examinees thought process would be something like the following:

(1) I shouldn't lie, lying is wrong;
(2) I especially shouldn't lie to get an important, sensitive job;
(3) And certainly not while on a lie detector!
(4) But I must lie to get the job!
(5) Does not compute!  I'm so stressed and anxious about this [control question]!

However,  think, for the informed subject, it is more like this:

(1) Yeah, he's trying to get me to lie, just like I knew he would;
(2) I'm not a very good liar? Speak for yourself, buddy!
(3) This is so lame, does anyone really believe this stuff?  Like any agency would have a single employee if this was true.
(4) Okay, control question, I'm supposed to lie now.
(5) Okay, this one is relevant, tell the truth.  
(6) Another control question.  "Oh, no.  I've never done that."  Yeah, but I would like to thank the Academy...

In short, I fail to see how a truly informed subject is going to be so stressed out at the control questions, as he or she must be for the thing to work.  If someone tells me they'll give me a hundred dollars if I say the sky is purple am I going to produce a result that says "deception" with the same reliability as the guy who thinks he's going to be fired if he doesn't lie and if he's caught lying?  I don't think so.  And if I'm wrong, then there's no reason for all the secrecy about how the polygraph works, it can be brought out into the light and many people who are tempted to use countermeasures won't.

Just for the record, pailryder has, of course, been completely unable to give any reason why an informed subject who is honest would react more strongly to control questions than relevant questions.  He has not even attempted to do so.

[pailryder]

Lethe

Setting up a comparison issue for an intelligent, knowledge subject is  as much an art as a science.  And, has been the most challenging and rewarding part of my career.  Proper selection and formulation of a comparison issue makes or breaks the truthful test.  We can all agree there are times when it is ethical to lie, sometimes there is even an ethical duty to lie and sometimes there is a right to defend one's self by lying.  So lying is not always wrong or bad, it can be  the proper ethical course of action.

I know, as you take pleasure in pointing out, that I lie in connection with my work, and I will tell you from personal experience that I am uncomfortable answering when confronted with that fact.  But don't we all lie in connection with our work?  And if I knew the sins of your profession, as you already know mine, might I not be able to point out lies you likely tell, and to ask you questions in a manner that you may find uncomfortable to answer, even if answered truthfully?  Could I create an ethical delima for you asking about something you have done, that would be more meaningful than the relevant questions about something you did not do?  Is that possible?

[Stopit]

"So lying is not always wrong or bad, it can be  the proper ethical course of action."

Now that is just Hog Wash...

[George W. Maschke]

"So lying is not always wrong or bad, it can be  the proper ethical course of action."

Now that is just Hog Wash...

No, it's not hogwash: pailryder is correct in this instance. The movie Liar Liar, for example, derives most of its humor from portraying the unhappy consequences of telling the truth in all situations for just 24 hours.

The ethical question with regard to polygraphy is under what circumstances is deception by examiner or examinee justified?

[Stopit]

"No, it's not hogwash: pailryder is correct in this instance. The movie Liar Liar, for example, derives most of its humor from portraying the unhappy consequences of telling the truth in all situations for just 24 hours."

My apologies I lied but meant to do it ethically .

[pailryder]

Stopit

Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis.  Or a priest to protect a confidential communication.  Or an undercover agent to a drug dealer or organized crime target.   Or someone on the underground railroad who lies to protect an enslaved person.  Or a civil rights worker to a klansman.  

[StopIt]

"Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis."

Yes in such a case as this, or to protect a child from any other evil! I would most definitely agree!!!!
Thanks for that analogy...

[notguilty1]

Stopit

Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis.  Or a priest to protect a confidential communication.  Or an undercover agent to a drug dealer or organized crime target.   Or someone on the underground railroad who lies to protect an enslaved person.  Or a civil rights worker to a klansman.  

The point on this site however is the fact that a polygraph cannot accuratly detect any of them.

[sackett]

Stopit

Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis.  Or a priest to protect a confidential communication.  Or an undercover agent to a drug dealer or organized crime target.   Or someone on the underground railroad who lies to protect an enslaved person.  Or a civil rights worker to a klansman.  

The point on this site however is the fact that a polygraph cannot accuratly detect any of them.

To now use your choice of logic.  What is your proof that polygraph can not accurately detect "any of them?"

I suppose I'll be waiting a while for you response, so I'll check back tomorrow...

Sackett