Ways to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique?

[beech trees]

Thanks for setting the record straight Anonymous. I had no idea that the RI format was held in such utter contempt even by the pro-polygraph community as a whole.

Dave

[George W. Maschke]

PDD-Fed,

Well George and friends.  You are so fond of "challenges".  You like to throw down the gauntlet?  Here is my challenge to you.  Tell this poor lost soul how to "beat" the R&I test that he is REQUIRED to take to get this job he wants but based on his past behavior, does not deserve.

As we note in the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 133), the behavioral countermeasures discussed earlier in Chapter 4, plus the absence of any substantive admissions on the subjects part, may well be enough to get him through the Relevant/Irrelevant "test." These behavioral countermeasures include having a pre-planned "throwaway" explanation for any reactions to any relevant questions.

If your scoring method is such that any reactions to any relevant questions necessarily increases the likelihood of a "significant response" outcome, then other physical countermeasures that might still be helpful include augmenting one's physiological responses to the number one actually picked during the "stim test." A strong reaction to the "hot" question on the "stim test" may help make any responses to the relevant questions appear less "significant."

If you use the Keeler technique of announcing the beginning and ending of the "test" as form of "control" stimulus, then it might be beneficial to produce a reaction to those announcements.

Another strategy might be to produce a strong response to the first question of each chart collection (such reactions are not unexpected, which is why the first question in a series is usually a sacrifice relevant), so that any later responses to relevant questions might appear minor in comparison.

And, of course, by regulating one's breathing, one can avoid producing any reaction to a relevant question on the pneumo channels.

Now, I know you will remove this message quickly from the "Ten most recent posts."  You ALWAYS remove any post from that list that does not support your personal belief system (You have removed at least 2 of mine).  But if you do take up the challenge, then either figure something out, or ADMIT there is at least ONE procedure that all the spinctor squeezing, tack sticking, toe curling, and cheek biting in the world, can not counter....

The "ten most recent posts" feature actually displays the most recent post in each of the ten most recently updated message threads. Hence, when you post a new message to this thread, your post will appear in the "ten most recent posts" list, but as soon  as someone posts a reply, that reply will appear in the list instead. This is an automated feature of the software which runs this message board; we're not removing posts from the list based on their content.

Now, as Anonymous pointed out, the R/I "test" has been largely dismissed by the polygraph community itself, and it has no validity as a diagnostic technique. Again I ask you, if the polygraph cannot detect lies (as you have admitted), then just what does it mean when you report that there are "signficant responses" present? What do those responses signify?

[PDD-Fed]

George & Company...

Allow me to respond...

George, you said, "the behavioral countermeasures discussed earlier in Chapter 4, plus the absence of any substantive admissions on the subjects part, may well be enough to get him through the Relevant/Irrelevant "test."

How do your "behavioral countermeasures" equate to the physical manipulation of the charts which you alledge make it "so easy" to beat a polygraph exam.  All I get from your advice is to act "friendly" and not admit to anything.  SORRY, the examinee still fails the exam.  His physiological responses are unchanged.  George, you have in no way helped him "beat the polygraph."

You said, "These behavioral countermeasures include having a pre-planned "throwaway" explanation for any reactions to any relevant questions."

Oh., PLEASE!  Any "explanation" the examinee makes, only means that I run a confirmatory test to make sure there isn't anything else the subject is hiding.  "Throwaways are quickly "thrown away."

You said., If your scoring method is such that any reactions to any relevant questions necessarily increases the likelihood of a "significant response" outcome, then other physical countermeasures that might still be helpful include augmenting one's physiological responses to the number one actually picked during the "stim test." A strong reaction to the "hot" question on the "stim test" may help make any responses to the relevant questions appear less "significant."

No George, nice attempt at dancing though.  The fact is that If I see ANY consistancy in the subject's responses, he and I are going to have a lengthy prayer session...They don't have to be the biggest responses, just consistant...Gee, I thought you understood that...

You said, "If you use the Keeler technique of announcing the beginning and ending of the "test" as form of "control" stimulus, then it might be beneficial to produce a reaction to those announcements."

Sorry George, that is not how we do it in the government.  You need source materials a little more recent than 1936 if you are going to advise people...

"Another strategy might be to produce a strong response to the first question of each chart collection (such reactions are not unexpected, which is why the first question in a series is usually a sacrifice relevant), so that any later responses to relevant questions might appear minor in comparison."

Nope, we expect an "orienting response" We don't even look at the first question.  Nice try though....

"And, of course, by regulating one's breathing, one can avoid producing any reaction to a relevant question on the pneumo channels."

...and of course, we can still identify responses in controlled breathing.  Plus, we do try to get the subject to stop.  If he refuses, we still have three other channels.  If he controls his breathing to to point the charts are not evaluatable, we shut down the test, hire the next guy in line, and refer this applicant to Burger King...

Lastly, you said, "Now, as Anonymous pointed out, the R/I "test" has been largely dismissed by the polygraph community itself, and it has no validity as a diagnostic technique."

George, I am really surprised at you...  You are the one who argues that NO polygraph technique has validity.  Now, you are actually QUOTING the polygraph community?  Gee, maybe you ARE a spy for the American Polygraph Association...  As far as the R&I being "dismissed" by the PG community, if you had your hand on the pulse of the aforementioned community, you would discover the R&I is in significant use across the country...

"Again I ask you, if the polygraph cannot detect lies (as you have admitted), then just what does it mean when you report that there are "signficant responses" present? What do those responses signify?"

Finally, a reasonable question.  George, SR responses mean just that.   The particular stimulas is significant for some reason to that examinee at that time.  It may be because he is lying to the question and is afraid of getting caught.  It may be that the behavior being questioned really bothers him (The subject is asked a drug question, and his cousin dies of an OD).  It is my job to help the subject resolve the issue.  Most do (after confirmatory testing) and in most cases, they get the job they are seeking.  Those who choose not to, or those who accept the innane advice of others to attempt to manipulate their examinations, are disqualified, period...

PDD-Fed


 

[George W. Maschke]

PDD-Fed,

Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'm not sure I understand everything you've written, though. You wrote in part:

You said, "These behavioral countermeasures include having a pre-planned "throwaway" explanation for any reactions to any relevant questions."
Oh., PLEASE!  Any "explanation" the examinee makes, only means that I run a confirmatory test to make sure there isn't anything else the subject is hiding.  "Throwaways are quickly "thrown away."

Could you explain what you mean by a "confirmatory" test? Is that the same as a breakdown test? If not, what's the difference?

...The fact is that If I see ANY consistancy in the subject's responses, he and I are going to have a lengthy prayer session...They don't have to be the biggest responses, just consistant...Gee, I thought you understood that...

Perhaps I've misunderstood. My understanding was that reactions to a relevant question must be not only consistent, but also specific (to the relevant question involved) and significant (when charts are scored globally). Are you saying that reactions to relevant questions need only be consistent in order to result in a "significant response" determination? If not, could you clarify on what basis you arrive at such a determination?

...and of course, we can still identify responses in controlled breathing.  Plus, we do try to get the subject to stop.  If he refuses, we still have three other channels.  If he controls his breathing to to point the charts are not evaluatable, we shut down the test, hire the next guy in line, and refer this applicant to Burger King...

How can you identify controlled breathing? For example, according to DoDPI, the normal cyclic rate is 13 to 18 breaths per minute (see p. 12 of the PDF version of the DoDPI document Test Data Analysis). Such a baseline breathing rate is not hard to maintain during the "in-test" phase of a polygraph examination, and doing so will suppress any scorable reactions on the pneumo channels. How can you tell whether a subject's breathing at an even 13 to 18 breaths per minute is natural or the result of conscious manipulation?

[Anonymous]

PDD-Fed,

If you are having trouble detecting your own, i.e., your ridiculous assertion that Mr. Maschke might be a member of the American Polygraph Association, I suppose we should not be surprised that your moniker, psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD-Fed), is equally absurd and empty.  By the way, are you now PDSR-Fed and the nomenclature simply not kept pace with the lightning-fast theoretical developments in the world of polygraphy?? Who in your community wants to come forward and publicly embrace something (RI testing) so truly unfounded and insane as to make the CQT test appear rational and well conceived?  Admittedly, only a member of the polygraph community could sink to such an intellectual low.   Perhaps you might care to review my earlier post and discuss the theoretical basis for drawing conclusions from a litany of repeated hot button items (relevant questions) and the haphazard so-called clinical approach to scoring that some in your community have utilized with this technique over the years...

[beech trees]

First, I believe it to be quite clear from my prior posts what the acquaintance exam is used for.

Regardless of your belief system, the Aquaintance Test or Stim Test is utilized soley to instill fear and awe in the test subject, and to get the test subject into a mindset that the polygraph interogator can somehow read his mind and divine truth and falsehood from the scribbled tracings of four physiological readings. Any casual reader of the DoDPI Manual spew concerning same can see that.

Second, where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?

This topic was discussed in superb fashion in another thread on this board by Dr. Drew Richardson, whom I quote in part in response:

Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.

(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.

(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...

Third, my arguments for the validity of CQT polygraph were based on peer reviewed scientific research.

JB, your oft-referenced peer-reviewed scientific research had absolutely nothing to do with polygraphy-- Dr. Richardson and Mr. Maschke pretty much handed you your head when you tried to use that line on another discussion thread here on the board.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.  Banter as you may, it does not change the results of the current available scientific research. You have a right to your 'opinion' about polygraph.  Conflicting views neither prove or disprove that polygraph is a science.  I have already debated this topic providing the contradictory evidence of CQT polygraphs validity and will let it stand at that.

Your 'opinion' about polygraphy has as much scientific validity as mine, JB. YOU YOURSELF argued in another thread that:

I am glad that we do see together that the pre-employment polygraph screening in its current state is invalid and unacceptable.  I am not alone in the polygraph field in this view.  Many examiners I have spoken with share the need for reform and national standards.

I don't know how the hell the same testing format can be invalid and unacceptable yet completely valid and acceptable in a different set of circumstances, but apparently you've settled that little conundrum in your own mind.

Fourth, please cite for me recent federal court rulings on polygraph were there is reference to blanket exclusion as forensic scientific evidence.  Please cite a recent case were the mere mention of polygraph is grounds for a mistrial.

I'm sorry, 1997 is not recent enough for you? And since when does a Circuit Court or Supreme Court decision or opinion have to be recent to be valid? Do you dismiss the Amistad Case because it was decided in 1847 or thereabouts?

Finally, I don't think you have paid close attention to what I have wrote in the past.  I do not nor have I ever conduct pre-employment polygraphs.  So I have never disqualified anyone with a polygraph exam/test countermeasures or not.

So noted.

[J.B. McCloughan]

beech trees,

First, you have a right to draw your opinion on whatever material on polygraph you have read, albeit not complete.  

Second, My question was, "where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?[/u]"  Not who has ever said this statement.  Please direct me to the supporting peer-reviewed scientific research on this assertion.  In your search I believe you will find quite the contrary to your belief.

Third, peer-reviewed scientific research on CQT polygraph was off the topic?  If you are referring to the use of psychology or physiology, the other cited research can be readily correlated to polygraph.  Correlation of related research is quite readily used in both the medical and psychological fields.

Fourth, I think you should research a little more into the differences of conducting a pre-employment and criminal specific issue exam/test.  A test can be very valid for one application but not for another.  I would think you are quite able to find other disciplines (i.e. psychology, physiology, medical, forensic science...etc.) that I need not explain this issue.

Finally, although court decisions can be quite dated and still be valid, antiquity of a court's decision has a great deal of importance when the more current rulings have replaced them. (i.e. Frye's General Acceptance Rule vs Daubert's Federal Rules of Evidence)  
For an in-depth review: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/courseware/goldman/kesan.html

[George W. Maschke]

...

Second, My question was, "where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?[/u]"  Not who has ever said this statement.  Please direct me to the supporting peer-reviewed scientific research on this assertion.  In your search I believe you will find quite the contrary to your belief.

...

J.B.,
 
The numerous deceptions involved in both CQT and R/I polygraphy which Drew enumerated, and to which beech trees referred, are integral parts of the polygraph technique itself. They are not necessary for a polygraph chart reading to be valid (CQT and R/I polygraphy have no validity as diagnostic techniques), but rather, these deceptions are necessary if the polygraph interrogation is to be conducted in accordance with the standards of the polygraph community.

[beech trees]

beech trees,

First, you have a right to draw your opinion on whatever material on polygraph you have read, albeit not complete.

Nice, nice compliment JB. I have read enough, and experienced abuse at enough polygraph interrogations (two) to know of what I speak. I quoted Circuit Court Opinion, the opinion of the APA, of both victims of and former proponents of polygraphy, and my own horrible experiences with polygraphy. The only people to whom I do not make reference are those who benefit financially and strategically (i.e., the almost unlimited weilding of power and influence over the hiring process) from the continued use and abuse of the polygraph in the local, state, and federal governments as well as the crimnal justice system. If that's not enough for you, frankly I don't give a damn. Move on, because I am here to stay.

Second, My question was, "where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?[/u]"  Not who has ever said this statement.

A curious but fairly sophmoric language trap JB. If I am asked to cite a source, do you agree I must quote a source?

If you're asking for some sort of empirical edict akin to Fermat's Last Theorem, I can't provide one. It doesn't change the facts that polygraphers lie to their test subjects with willful abandon and that polygraphers, contrary to their moralistic and frankly bombastic, pedagoguish sermons about 'telling the truth' here on these boards, EXPECT you to lie during the course of a polygraph exam.

[J.B. McCloughan]

beech trees,

In my last post I wrote:

First, you have a right to draw your opinion on whatever material on polygraph you have read, albeit not complete.

To this you replied:

Nice, nice compliment JB. I have read enough, and experienced abuse at enough polygraph interrogations (two) to know of what I speak. I quoted Circuit Court Opinion, the opinion of the APA, of both victims of and former proponents of polygraphy, and my own horrible experiences with polygraphy. The only people to whom I do not make reference are those who benefit financially and strategically (i.e., the almost unlimited weilding of power and influence over the hiring process) from the continued use and abuse of the polygraph in the local, state, and federal governments as well as the crimnal justice system. If that's not enough for you, frankly I don't give a damn. Move on, because I am here to stay.

Perhaps you missed part of the meaning behind what I wrote in this sentence.  I simply said that the material you have read and this site has is not complete[/u].  

In response to the rest of your statement;  

1.  Your taking two polygraph exams and reading a limited amount of material on the subject does not in any way discredit the achieved accuracy results through peer-reviewed scientific research on polygraph.  I wouldn't think you to be arguing authority in this matter.  Even if one did have authority within a given topic, it does not outweigh the results of validated scientific research.  That is but one of the humbling eventualities of science.
 
2.  If you read the Circuit Court ruling you quoted within your post on this message thread, you will find this within:

Courts assert that statement

The district court granted the motion to exclude the evidence 104 based on Brown's per se rule. In view of Daubert, we vacate the conviction and remand for the district court to conduct a particularized inquiry consistent with Daubert and to deter- mine admissibility. If the district court concludes that the evidence is still inadmissible after conducting the inquiry, it may reinstate the conviction.

I think this ruling, which you used as evidence to support such statements as "The results, of course, are inadmissible in a vast majority of courts in the US-- indeed, the mere mention of the polygraph is usually enough for a mistrial.", makes it quite clear that polygraph is to be viewed with the same Rules of Evidence and not per se excluded.  Furthermore, I see no reference to a case were a mistrial was ordered due to mere mention of the word polygraph.

3.    Before you draw any final conclusions from Lykken and Iacono's survey, I suggest you read the entire unedited documentation.  Maybe George can post it on this site in its' entirety with all the data collection and statistical processing techniques that were used.  If I am not mistaken, this was asked to be produced by Honts and Amato and the response was, in essence, we will give you the data if you agree not to conduct experiments on humans anymore. William G. Iacono wrote: HYPERLINK

You then wrote:

A curious but fairly sophmoric language trap JB. If I am asked to cite a source, do you agree I must quote a source?

If you're asking for some sort of empirical edict akin to Fermat's Last Theorem, I can't provide one. It doesn't change the facts that polygraphers lie to their test subjects with willful abandon and that polygraphers, contrary to their moralistic and frankly bombastic, pedagoguish sermons about 'telling the truth' here on these boards, EXPECT you to lie during the course of a polygraph exam.

There are no traps involved in my wording. It was you who asserted that it is 'incumbent' of the polygraph examiner to lie and deceive.  I find no obligation in the written procedures of conducting a polygraph exam/test and/or the available peer-reviewed scientific research that states an examiner must lie or deceive to conduct a valid polygraph.   In fact, you may wish to research the forensic application of a polygraph exam/test.  Just because someone says something, does not 'prove' it to be true.

Note: this message was slightly edited to work around a problem that prevented the included hyperlink from displaying properly. In addition, the extraneous text "Error! Bookmark not defined." was removed from para. 3. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

[Anonymous]

J.B.,

You state:

  

...I find no obligation in the written procedures of conducting a polygraph exam/test and/or the available peer-reviewed scientific research that states an examiner must lie or deceive to conduct a valid polygraph...

  Nor do you find in said procedures stated that an examiner must breathe while conducting an (CQT) exam.  However both (breathing and various forms of deception on the part of the examiner) occur as surely as the sun rising in the East and (in some form) with every examination.  Should you maintain that this is not the case, I would suggest you support your claim with the availability for public scrutiny of audio/video tapes of all your exams over the past year or suggest any other examiner where this scrutiny would be available.

[Anonymous]

J.B.,

One additional follow-up question to my last post:  Do you believe that every examinee deserves the protection afforded through the routine audio/video taping of polygraph examinations?  

[J.B. McCloughan]

Anonymous,

Most of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response.  I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.  

The recording of a polygraph exam would be a most useful tool, when used as documentation of the proper procedures for later scrutiny by the appropriate entities.  It has in fact been so suggested by courts that this be done to aid them in the evidentiary hearing process.  I personally have no problem with the recording of polygraph examinations for this purpose.  I do have a problem with the recording of a polygraph examination within the purposed agenda you have implied.  Weather truthful or deceptive, any individual within our free society we so relish should not have the threat of the general public viewing their polygraph, as you suggest.  This ludicrous course would most certainly lead to further consequences and the loss of  privacy and protection that is afforded in other facets of inquires within society.

[Anonymous]

J.B.,

Care to name a few astute opponents of polygraphy who will agree with you that deception is not part and parcel of this foolishness??

Apparently your extended participation on this site has left you largely missing the perspective of the many victims who post.  This site is largely not about privacy invasion, but lack of due process and examinee victimization.  Your rationale for not wanting video/audio taping rings very hollow and would not be shared by the many on this site who have posted their stories, entered law suits, been interviewed on TV, etc.  These people are quite willing to have their stories told in order to obtain justice for themselves and those who share their plights.  Even those who would be concerned about privacy issues would have only you and your fellow polygraphers to blame if the tapes were inappropriately used.  With regard to reviewing the exams, there could easily be established procedures for having respected authorities or appointed citizens groups, e.g., institutional review boards, etc. review these.   The only reason for not taping these exams is to protect your lot, not the countless number who have been and will be victimized with any sort of sanctioned or defacto cloaking of the process...

[George W. Maschke]

J.B.,

You wrote to Anonymous:

Most of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response.  I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.

J.B., astute opponents (and even some practitioners) of polygraphy might wonder just what it is that you've been smoking... Have you so internalized the deceptions inherent in polygraphy that you no longer recognize them as such?

As beech trees pointed out, Dr. Drew Richardson has enumerated some of the deceptions involved in an earlier message thread:

Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.

(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.

(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...

Similarly, another astute polygraph expert and critic, Dr. David Lykken, notes in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):

One important point about the various lie detection methods that we have only touched on in passing deserves explicit emphasis in this summing up. All of these techniques fundamentally depend on deception -- not just in one way and not just in little ways. The theory and assumptions of polygraphic interrogation require the examiner to successfully deceeive each subject that he tests in several basic ways. First, he must persuade the subject that being untruthful or even unsure about his answers to the control questions may cause him to fail the test, although in fact the opposite of this is true. Second, when he administers the "stim" test in order to impress the subject with the accuracy of the technique, the examiner has two choices, both of them deceptive. He can use the original Reid "pick-a-card" method in which the deck is either stacked or marked so that the examiner can be sure to guess the right card. Alternatively, he can use the Raskin "pick-a-number" method in which he deceitfully explains that he is "determining what your polygraphic response looks like when you lie." The truth is, that individuals do not show characteristic physiological response patterns when they lie that they do not also show when telling the truth. Third, throughout his interactions with this subject, the examiner must convey an impression of virtual infallibility. The stim-test is just a component of this basic deception. The purpose is benign enough; if guilty subjects are convinced the polgyraph will reveal their guilt, then they are more likely to respond strongly to the relevant questions. If innocent subjects are similarly convinced, then they will tend not to respond so strongly. Moreover, because most examiners truly believe in their near-infallibility, because as we have seen they are the victims of their own deceptive art, they may convey this needed impression not only effectively but also without conscious guile. Nonetheless, the polygraph test, as we have seen, has an accuracy closer to chance than to infallibility; the innocent being tested by the police faces worse odds than in a game of Russian roulette. The fact that most polygraph examiners are not aware of these facts (indeed, they may be the last to know) is not an adequate excuse. Fourth, when the subject is interrogated after a polygraph test, he may be the victim of repeated deceptions. "This unbiased, scientific instrument is saying that you're not telling the truth about this, John!" "Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you feel guilty about, Mary, then maybe you will do better on the next test." "With this polygraph chart, George, no one is going to believe you now. The best thing you can do is to confess and make the best deal you can."

I will confess here that I do not personally object to certain harmless deceptions of criminal suspects that might lead to verifiable confessions and a quick and easy solution to a criminal investigation. But a procedure that claims to be a genuine test for truth that cannot hope to succeed even by its own theory and assumptions unless the subject is successfully deceived in certain standard ways is an invitation to abuse, abuse by examiners and especially by sophisticated criminals and spies. I submit that it is madness for courts or federal police and security agencies to rely on polygraph results for this reason alone. As we have seen, of course, there are many other reasons for this same diagnosis.