Probably going to use countermeasures, but I have a question..

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Cullen, you've just revealed the fourth favorite defense that you and the "anti-" group on this website use when you're losing an argument: you throw out a meaningless post in an effort to quickly put some distance between an opponent's successful argument so that astute, perceptive readers might not go back and look at it and see what a fool you are.  In this case, JPW blew you fools out of the water, so you hope to throw up a smoke screen so that readers might not notice.

(Hint for readers: go back and read JPW's last couple of posts, and you'll find Cullen's latest idiotic attempts very amusing.)

Now, I've already stated many times that it would be foolish to take the advice posted on this website to try to "beat" the polygraph.  And I also stated that perhaps anyone who takes such advice deserves what they get when they sit in the polygraph chair and screw themselves.  However, I never EVER said that I don't care if given applicants are hired or not.  While any good polygrapher should go into the exam room with an impartial mind, not caring whether the examinee passes the exam or not, as I stated before, I always want the examinee to pass because it makes everyone happy, a good person cleared another hurdle toward getting a job he or she wants, and it makes my job easier and my day brighter.  But if an examinee chooses to ignore my instructions and attempts to implement faulty advice he or she read on a website such as this, full of ignorant, inexperienced, self-portrayed experts, THEN I definitely would NOT want such a naive, dishonest person working for my employer, and I would indeed be satisfied to thwart such a person's goal.

Of course, YOU will probably come back putting more words in my mouth because you have absolutely no knowledge, training or experience that would qualify you to make any claim whatsover about the polygraph process.

[T.M. Cullen]

If countermeasures don't work, what are you worried about?  You seem intensely fixated on the advice given in TLBTLD, especially the part about CMs, and this website in general.  If the polygraph is so accurate, then a bunch of "bogus" information and advice provided here should not be a problem for you.  

If CMs are so easily detected, they shouldn't be that much of a problem for you, should they?  It should just make it that much easier for you to catch applicants silly enough to follow the advice on this board.  

OTOH, if CMs do work, and knowing ahead of time that the polygraph is all about INTERROGATION and applicantrs are duly forewarned to watch what they say (like a criminal suspect advised by his lawyer),  and informed that the polygraph has NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY according to the nations top scientists, that WOULD be a problem for you, and might explain your fixation with this site.  Just a thought.

BTW, what evidence do you have that you can even detect countermeasures?  

TC

[T.Cullen]

I would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.  And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.  Could it be any clearer than this?

Beware of atheists who quote the bible, and beware of polygraphers who quote the NAS Report.

The NAS report also stated:

"[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

So maybe the best way to stop people from using CMs (and improve national security at the same time) would be to take the NAS advice to heart and stop using polygraphs to screen applicants and current employees.  Maybe they would have caught Aldrich Ames sooner.

Then again, using your absurd logic, the NAS had no business rendering such an opinion as they have absolutely NO EXPERIENCE conducting polygraph interrogations.  

[George W. Maschke]

LieBabyCryBaby,

You write, among other things:

I would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.Could it be any clearer than this?

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

What part of that don't you understand, George?...

The NAS report does not assert that use of the countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by innocent persons results in an increased risk of their failing the polygraph. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.

Let's look at the first part of your citation. The following text appears at p. 147 of the NAS report:

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.

Now let's look at the second part of your citation from the NAS report, which you present as if it immediately followed the preceding text:

There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

However, the above portion actually appears on page 140, seven pages before the earlier cited text. And you omitted an in-text citation to the studies referenced by the foregoing passage (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001), neither of which addressed the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

It is fair to say that the NAS report questions the ease with which countermeasures can be learned. What we note in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is that in peer-reviewed laboratory studies by Charles Honts and collaborators, some 50% of programmed guilty examinees were able to fool the lie detector after a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction, and even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect their countermeasures. It can be (and has been) argued that under field conditions, where the consequences of being judged deceptive are more serious, genuinely guilty persons would have a harder time producing strong enough reactions to the control questions to overcome any reactions to the relevant questions. On the other hand, those facing a polygraph under field conditions typically have much more than 30 minutes to prepare themselves and considerably greater motivation to do so than participants in a laboratory experiment. The ease with which countermeasures may be learned and successfully applied may also depend on the intelligence and educational background of the individual. As the NAS report correctly notes, research in this regard is wanting.

It's worth mentioning here the closest thing we have to a field study of countermeasures, which David Lykken relates in Chapter 19 (How to Beat the Lie Detector) of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., 1998):

Methods Taught by Floyd Fay

I mentioned earlier my correspondence with Floyd Fay while he was serving the first two years of a life sentence for murder. His conviction, since proven to have been in error, resulted in large part from testimony by a polygrapher that this defendant had failed a stipulated lie test. At his request, I had sent Fay some information about polygraphic interrogation, including an article of my own that explains how one might attempt to "beat" the Control Question Test. After some months, I received from Fay a letter that read, in part, as follows:

"Since reading the article that you sent me ... I have been running my own experiment. The prison that I am in forces anyone that is suspected of violating a prison regulation into taking a polygraph. I have been able to get to nine of these people prior to their taking a test. Out of the nine that I KNOW were guilty of the 'offense' that they were accused of, nine have beat the test! I realize that this is a small group to work with, but the 100% 'hit rate' is nothing to laugh at. All I have done is have them read the article that you have sent me and then explain exactly what you were saying and they have all beat the test."

It would be difficult for a researcher to set up a controlled study to determine whether guilty suspects, to be tested under real life conditions, could be trained to beat the lie test. Fay does not claim to be a scientist but I think he has helped to illuminate an inaccessible corner. As he remarks, nine out of nine is nothing to laugh at. Attorney F. Lee Bailey once offered a prize of $10,000 to "anyone who can beat the lie detector." I think that it would be only fair if Mr. Bailey would pay off this bet to Mr. Fay, in wholly inadequate compensation for Fay's two years spent in prison, falsely convicted by the lie detector Bailey claims to be almost infallible.

[T.M. Cullen]

. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.

He pontificates most arrogantly here, and goes on and on about his vast experience, yet he resorts to such dishonesty.  People arguing from a position of superiority usually don't have to resort to these tactics.

Shameful!

TC

[Sergeant1107]

People arguing from a position of superiority usually don't have to resort to these tactics.

I have noticed that, too.

People arguing from a position of strength generally need not engage in ad hominem attacks, and they have no need to disparage the credentials or qualifications of anyone posting their opinion on an Internet message board.

If people who believe the polygraph is not accurate are wrong it should be relatively easy to prove that, logically and scientifically, if the polygraph is in fact a scientific instrument that accurately detects deception.

Any neutral reader to this board will immediately notice the plethora of personal attacks made by polygraph supporters at a large number of people who simply post their opinion that the polygraph is not an accurate method of detecting deception.  Such attacks do nothing for their cause except lower their credibility.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

People arguing from a position of strength generally need not engage in ad hominem attacks, and they have no need to disparage the credentials or qualifications of anyone posting their opinion on an Internet message board.

JPW already explained what an actual ad hominem attack is, so if you don't understand it, why do you keep using the term?  It is not an ad hominem attack to disparage the credentials or qualifications of people have who none.  A spade is a spade.  An ignoramus is an ignoramus.  When you make statements about something with which you have no experience, as if your opinion is factual, then you are indeed an ignoramus, and you should be disparaged.

[Sergeant1107]

Perhaps the following definitions of "ad hominem" may be useful:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack.  Civilized debate should consist of addressing the arguments or points proposed by whomever you are debating, not denigrating the debater himself.

I really don't understand why you would even come to this message board if you have no wish to be burdened by the opinions of people who are not professional polygraph operators.  There are closed boards for polygraph operators where you need never engage in what you obviously consider the mundanity of uninformed posters.  

I guess you are simply posting flame bait rather than engaging in a debate or answering questions.  Feel free to continue, if you must, but I do hope you grow weary of it before too long.  It does nothing to further any intelligent debate, but it does subtract from your credibility with each new flaming post.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Funny how you would say that my posting on this forum subtracts from my credibility, when you have absolutely no credibility yourself, Sergeant.

I'm big enough to apologize if my strong, experienced opinion comes across as "flaming."  However, when you say that "Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack," you give yourself more credit than is due.  I don't "perceive" you to lack experience or qualifications at all; it is without question that you have none of either, and I sometimes become impatient with ignorant (and that's not a "flame" or an ad hominem attack, but simply the truth) people who make statements as if they are fact, when those people have absolutely no training or experience  to make such statements.

My reasons for coming to this forum are:

1. For entertainment. It is quite entertaining, at least for a little while, to ruffle the parrots' feathers on this forum. Sometimes the spiteful side of me enjoys baiting and hooking little fish who want to be big fish.

2. I sincerely wish to educate ignorant, naive, gullible--but sincerely concerned--future polygraph examinees so that maybe they won't screw themselves when they come to take a polygraph.  You see, I don't enjoy warning people before they take a polygraph that they should simply follow my instructions and they'll do fine, and then watching them fall into the trap they set for themselves.

3. I enjoy exchanges with intelligent, experienced people who also come here for entertainment and to enlighten others.

But you are right about something: I will grow weary of my time on this forum after a little while longer, and then I'll leave for a few days, weeks, or even months.  Then you won't have to deal with trying to put out my fires each day, and you, George et. al can go back to patting each other on the back and giving future polygraph examinees poor, ignorant advice.

Perhaps I can save a few people, but I'm not going to make it my mission to save them all.  Unlike George, I've got better things to do with my life than sit all day on a forum in an obscure website such as this.  If you don't think it's obscure, and that it's readership is going down, check out the following link:

http://www.quantcast.com/antipolygraph.org

Half of the posts are by regulars like you and, yes, like me.  Kind of puts things into perspective, which I think you lack.

 

[billson]

I think I've been lurking here long enough...

First I have taken no less than three polygraphs for Federal Agencies.  I passed all of them using the techniques I learned here.  They used the "Butt Pad" on all of them FYI.  So mental/breathing CMs only.

My problem is I did LSD twice when I was a teen.  It's something I have to hide because it is an automatic DQ in ANY LEO position.  The Federal Government is all about avoiding blame.  So even if there is a miniscule chance of a flashback one year after LSD use they still don't want to take the chance of hiring someone like me for the sole reason of covering their collective rears.

I have seen guys hired for LEO positions that had a DUI two years before applying which I find appauling.  These people are usually in their mid twenties and should know better.

If I could be given a chance to acknowledge my mistakes with out being shut out of a career I would.  

I think polygraph examiners come on this board for the sole reason of trying to instill doubt in their future "Subjects".  Only problem with that is the test they give you is straight out of the appendix of TBTLD.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

So, which relevant questions did you actually lie to when you used your countermeasures, billson? Studies show that countermeasures do nothing to help the innocent pass an exam, so I assume that you were guilty to the relevant issues.  Otherwise, you're about as believable as the guy who says his lucky rabbit's foot helps him avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

[billson]

Have you filled out your paperwork truthfully and completely?

Other than what you've told me have you ever used illegal drugs?