How Many People Passed Using Countermeasures

[Batman (Guest)]

Beech Trees:

Here you go again, commenting with such authority.  What do you base your comments/advise on?  How do you know when a polygraph examiner can or can not identify countermeasures?  You said the only way a polygraph examiner knows if countermeasures are used is if he is told by the examinee.  Exactly what is this comment based on?

Batman

[George W. Maschke]

Beech Trees:

Here you go again, commenting with such authority.  What do you base your comments/advise on?  How do you know when a polygraph examiner can or can not identify countermeasures?  You said the only way a polygraph examiner knows if countermeasures are used is if he is told by the examinee.  Exactly what is this comment based on?

Batman

Batman,
 
Although your question was addressed to beech trees, I'll answer it. Peer-reviewed research by Dr. Charles R. Honts and collaborators suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. In addition, there are to my knowledge no published articles or book chapters outlining any methodology for detecting such countermeasures. These factors help explain why Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has had no takers to date (150 days and counting now).

[Batman (Guest)]

Mr. M:

What exactly does "peer reviewed research ... suggests" mean?  Research can "suggest" many things.  I suspect that the use of the term "suggest" in this context simply means that this particular research can be interpreted in various ways, depending on what point the proponent or opponent wants to convey.

Often times research is like statistics.  One can twist and turn them to an advantage no matter what they really convey.  

Was the research you reference "real" world situations, or were the polygraph exams conducted under a controlled setting?  Most polygraph research I have seen, that is quoted by the opponents of polygraph, utilizes controlled setting examinations administered pertaining to some sort of "mock" crime.  I have got to believe these type examinations do not provide a true picture of polygraph examinations administered pertaining to actual criminal activity.

Thoughts?

Batman

[George W. Maschke]

Batman,

You ask:

What exactly does "peer reviewed research ... suggests" mean?  Research can "suggest" many things.  I suspect that the use of the term "suggest" in this context simply means that this particular research can be interpreted in various ways, depending on what point the proponent or opponent wants to convey.

When I spoke of this research "suggesting" that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it's because I don't believe that the available research conclusively proves the point. Nonetheless, a reasonable inference that such is the case may be drawn therefrom. That is essentially the conclusion of Honts himself, which he expressed as recently as last year at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review committee. (Click here for a RealPlayer audio file with his remarks on countermeasures.)

Honts et al.'s research was indeed conducted under controlled settings, with subjects receiving at most 30 minutes of instruction about polygraph procedure and countermeasures. The research was also conducted in the absence of jeopardy. Under field conditions, it seems likely that subjects would have much stronger motivation to master polygraph countermeasures and would likely spend more than a mere 30 minutes to prepare themselves. You'll find abstracts of Honts et al.'s countermeasure research in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (Have you taken the time to read the book?)

If you are aware of any credible evidence that the polygraph community has developed a better-than-chance technique for detecting countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, please let us know.

[Polycop]

George,

You suggested:

"Under field conditions, it seems likely that subjects would have much stronger motivation to master polygraph countermeasures and would likely spend more than a mere 30 minutes to prepare themselves."
.

I would like to put forth the possibility that under field conditions, and the real threat of negative consequences in being caught, the unsure subject would be more likely to "screw it up" and easily confronted if coutermeasures were suspected.  I have read a few posts on this site in which just this situation appears to have occurred...

Polycop...

[beech trees]

I would like to put forth the possibility that under field conditions, and the real threat of negative consequences in being caught...

What about the negative consequences of being falsely accused? How would the physiological output of a test subject who fears a false accusation which might result in the destruction of his family, his career, and his reputation differ from someone fearing detection of an actual crime?

[George W. Maschke]

I would like to put forth the possibility that under field conditions, and the real threat of negative consequences in being caught, the unsure subject would be more likely to "screw it up" and easily confronted if coutermeasures were suspected.  I have read a few posts on this site in which just this situation appears to have occurred...

How would the negative consequences of being caught increase the likelihood of a polygrapher detecting countermeasures? How would they increase the likelihood that the subject would admit to having employed countermeasures?

What posts are you referring to? I'm aware of only two posts wherein the author claims to have admitted using countermeasures: Reformed and Grateful posted by Zena/Boy Wonder on 17 May 2002 and What you teach DON'T WORK! posted by "screwed" four days later on 21 May. The first is an admitted fabrication and the second is highly suspect.

[Drew Richardson]

Polycop,

    I believe it quite likely that that which primarily distinguishes the environment of a CQT (probable or directed-lie) polygraph examination regarding a real crime versus a simulated crime relates to the consequences of the relevant issues.  The fear of those consequences and accompanying heightened physiological response to relevant questions on a polygraph exam is quite natural and may well result in this type of examination being made more accurate for guilty subjects and less accurate for innocent examinees in a field setting.  This, of course, is true because a large response to relevant questions makes more likely an accurate result for a guilty examinee and less likely an accurate result for an innocent examinee.  Unfortunately polygraph validity studies which utilize simulated crimes may well have this effect masked in the absence of any meaningful relevant issue consequences, i.e.,  simply suffer from a lack of external validity.

    I believe this aforementioned effect is manifested day in and day out with the sorts of polygraph screening examinations that are widely administered to applicants and employees in this country.  If I am correct, it is not much of a leap in logic to see that in a real setting that innocent examinees have a substantial reason to employ countermeasures to correct for this effect.  You are correct in assuming and even suggesting that this need does not necessarily and theoretically equate to a successfully employed solution.  The answer for innocent examinees however is not to let this need go unanswered because of any theoretical associated risks and/or empty bluff(s) of detection, but to become knowledgeable and efficient in doing that (properly employed countermeasures) which will lead to a successful outcome.

[Eastwood]

I'm curious:  Of those  of you who used the CM's and passed your tests, would you care to post your true name and the organization you "beat"?  If not, how come?  Or do you think that organization, and perhaps yourself, view this as cheating?

[George W. Maschke]

Eastwood,

I think the answers to your questions are self-evident. It would be foolhardy for anyone who used countermeasures and passed an employment-related polygraph interrogation to post his/her true name and the name of the organization involved. To do so would be to invite retaliation.

With regard to the truthful using countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome, as Elizabethan playwright Henry Chettle once wrote, and as we explain in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, "'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver." Do you disagree?

[Skeptic]

I'm curious:  Of those  of you who used the CM's and passed your tests, would you care to post your true name and the organization you "beat"?  If not, how come?  Or do you think that organization, and perhaps yourself, view this as cheating?

I can only speak for myself on this, Eastwood.

I'll take your last question first:  I would no more view as "cheating" the use of countermeasures to ensure a correct outcome on what otherwise would be a roll of the dice than I would view it as "cheating" to sell my qualifications in a job interview effectively, or use personal connections for an "in" to a position.

The polygraph does not indicate truth or falsehood.  Its use in employment screening (aside from elicited confessions) amounts to the use of a tarot card reading to determine whether I would get a job.  That is neither fair to me nor, in fact, to the employer who foolishly relies upon it, who would quite possibly be missing out on needed talent otherwise.  I'm sure the polygraph rejects qualified people and passes unqualified people all the time; at least in my case, I could ensure that the correct outcome was reached.

As for the first question:  I have no doubt that most employers who would rely upon the polygraph in the first place would incorrectly view countermeasures as "cheating" and a sign of deception, which is the reason I would choose anonymity.

Skeptic

[eisenmann372002]

I can think of very few things that would be more foolish to do than to post one's name and the name of the employer they "beat", using CM's or otherwise, in a public forum such as this. Several years ago, before I ever knew anything about CM's or even the polygraph itself, I took a polygraph and blatantly lied on it. I passed that polygraph, according to the examiner, "in record time". The only thing I knew going in was that there were things I'd done in the past that ONLY I knew about and therefore didn't need to feel nervous about questions dealing with those incidents. They would have DQ'ed me from the job. (For the record, these were things I'd done without *any*harm coming to others...at the time of my polygraph I was a recovering alcoholic/substance abuser and it was this that I lied about). Several years before THAT polygraph (when I was in recovery), I told the absolute truth about every question asked (there were no questions on substance abuse or alcoholism), and I failed. So to further explain the problem that I (and presumably most other opponents of the polygraph here) have with the polygraph, here it is in a very small nutshell: One can tell lies and pass it. That same person can tell the truth and fail it. Period. I simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND why you proponents of the polygraph fail to see the problem we have with this!!! Either you've never been forced to take one to get a job and been falsely accused of lying, or you truly believe this machine detects lies.

I can tell you this; I will have a very hard time taking anything that the pro-polygraphers seriously when Dr. Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community is accepted. No matter the result! Put your money where your mouth is, gang! I forgot who it was, but one loudmouth made a statement that read something like this; "I'd love to see you anti-polygraphers get in my chair! I could write a book about your admissions!". Here you have a man blabbing crap like this when this challenge was made MONTHS ago. PLEASE get Dr. Richardson in your chair, or be silenced. Of course, I have no doubt this was a troll in the first degree, but it does apply to all pro-polygraphers. The challenge has been set forth. Accept it or quit spreading the toxins.

Eis

[eisenmann372002]

Ah jeez, I'm an idiot. Sorry; when I posted that last tidbit I was busy yelling at my dogs outside. Upon re-reading it, I realized a sentence made no sense. The first sentence in the second paragraph SHOULD read: I can tell you this; I will have a very hard time taking anything that the pro-polygraphers SAY seriously UNTIL Dr. Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community is accepted.

Thank you for your patience with this slowly depreciating mind o' mine.

Eis

[watcher]

Actually when I applied for the LAPD I thought nothing of it really and I did not complete the application until I was at the testing facility.  Some of the administrtators complained that it was incomplete and other parts of the app were unreadable.  Oh well.  

I took a test passed that, I got an interview psch eval piss test phys and background invest and I paased it all.  I manage to irritate my background investigator since I couldnt remember all the loations I lived atr since I moved alot.

All in all in order to make it to the LAPD you just need to complete those processes.  Just complete not needed to do well.  Im reading about the sting and im gonna read georges pdf file too.

It is shocking how little you need to know or be qualified to be a cop.  All u need is a diploma, be healthy and pass the poly-SERIOUSLY

It is amazing that you will actually be a law enforcement officer.  LAPD must be hard up.

[beech trees]

It is amazing that you will actually be a law enforcement officer.  LAPD must be hard up.

Yes, say hello to your polygraphing BI friends in the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division. Their hard work really helped weed out the bad apples.