if it doesn't work, why do you promote countermeasures?

[curious examiner]

convince me!

[Twoblock]

Who, but polygrapher operators, say they don't work?

As I posted way back, in the mid sixties I took an employment polygraph lied like a rug, used countermeasures and passed. I got the job even though I didn't especially want it which was the reason I  tested the operator and his machine. One of the relevant questions was "do you plan on keeping this job at least 3 years?" I answered yes knowing full well it was a short term, fill in job for me.

A Polygrapher answered me with "that was then. Now we are better trained and use computer generated test and we catch you". Something to that effect. That's BS. The simple fact is that if one can raise the control questions spike slightly higher than the relevant questions, the charts should read pass. As of yet, polygraphers cannot read minds and when they holler countermeasures, they are guessing. True, they have the power of rejection and that makes one person one machine decisions are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[T.M. Cullen]

Convince me you can detect countermeasures.

If you can, why don't you take Dr. Richardson up on his challenge?

TC

[George W. Maschke]

convince me!

It is precisely because polygraph "testing" doesn't work -- indeed has no scientific basis at all -- that AntiPolygraph.org makes information on polygraph countermeasures available. Because false positive outcomes are quite common, truthful persons who face having their honesty and integrity "tested" by means of this pseudoscientific procedure may wish to do that which is possible to minimize the serious risk of an erroneous outcome.

[pailryder]

Mr Maschke

What is your advice to a truthful subject who has decided to employ cm if he or she faces testing by a technique that includes a cm question?  ie have you used cm today?  If answered yes they are discovered, if answered no they are no longer truthful.

[George W. Maschke]

pailryder,

The person who has decided to employ countermeasures should obviously answer "No" if asked "Did you use countermeasures on this test?"

I think that persons seeking positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions about such matters as illicit drug use and involvement in crime truthfully. But honesty is a two-way street. Faced with a fraudulent and invalid procedure that is wrongly called a "test" (polygraph screening) -- a procedure that depends on the examiner lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested" -- it is perfectly within the bounds of ethical behavior for an otherwise truthful person to employ countermeasures to protect herself against the risk of a false positive outcome, and to deny -- even untruthfully -- having used countermeasures if asked.

[pailryder]

Mr Maschke

Would you also advise the otherwise truthful, if confronted by his examiner regarding cm, to deny that he/she even knows what contermeasures are?

[George W. Maschke]

Mr Maschke

Would you also advise the otherwise truthful, if confronted by his examiner regarding cm, to deny that he/she even knows what contermeasures are?

That would depend on how much the examinee had revealed about his knowledge of polygraph procedure during the pre-test phase. If the examinee has concealed his knowledge of polygraph procedure (which I think is advisable so long as the polygraph community refuses to articulate how examiners will deal with sophisticated subjects), then of course it would make sense for the examinee to also deny knowledge of what countermeasures are. Or perhaps to offer a diversionary explanation such as, "I heard on TV that you can pass the polygraph by putting a tack in your shoe and jabbing yourself on every question, but I haven't done that."

But suppose the examinee has adopted the "complete honesty" approach suggested (and favored) in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. This approach may be especially sensible if the examinee is taking a re-test following a failed or inconclusive polygraph session. In such circumstances, the polygrapher may have a hard time believing that the examinee hasn't Googled "polygraph" and found information such as that presented here on AntiPolygraph.org. So for the examinee who has used the complete honesty approach and been accused of using polygraph countermeasures, it would make no sense to deny knowledge of what countermeasures are.

[pailryder]

Mr Maschke

How should an ethical examiner conduct himself when dealing with a sophisticated examinee who has chosen to use the partly honest approach?

[George W. Maschke]

Could you clarify what you mean by "the partly honest approach?"

[pailryder]

Someone who has chosen not to use the "complete honesty" approach you favor in TLBTLD.

[George W. Maschke]

In that situation, the polygraph examiner won't know that he is dealing with an examinee who understands CQT procedure. So I don't think the polygraph examiner who is trying to conduct himself ethically will have a basis for altering his conduct. That said, I think that polygraph screening is inherently unethical for reasons discussed at length in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Your thoughts?

[pailryder]

Speaking only for myself, with a full disclosure that I have earned my living at this for many years, I, of course, do not believe that  providing professional, independent credibility assessment to those who seek my opinion is in any way unethical.    

[Just thinking]

The veracity and accuracy of the polygraph can be summed up by the proponents own admission's.  Example; one of the techniques used to invalidate a polygraph is to tense up your butt cheeks at specific times during questioning.  To combat this, the FBI, CIA, etc have installed devices in the chairs to detect this trick.  Seems amusing at first, having a "Butt Clenching device" in a chair but it does bring up a simple question.  If you put so much stock in the polygraph's accuracy, why do you need this device?  In essence, your saying that the test is so fragile and falible that I can beat it by simply tensing up my ass.  The mere fact that we have had 100 years of debate over this and "accuracy" numbers that range from 50% to 99% tells us we have no idea how well this thing really works, if it even does.