Quote:


I always get a good laugh when I hear that polygraph examiners are diagnosing medical conditions. Someone with no college education and an eight-week training course has absolutely no business advising others on the status of their health.

I'll agree that poly's can detect physiological changes in the body, but not only when lying....
   
My third Poly I went to take, the tester sent me home to get an EKG - he said that I must have a heart problem, because my heart rate was all over the place on his machine.   

I had an EKG the next day and my doc (the police doc) said I was completly healthy, and my heart was strong and fine.

I was nervous because of the last poly, although I was honest about everything to my BG investigator, and he was the one who wrote the questions, so I knew I would pass...
   
Weird it was.

I have to agree with the rest of the folks - for criminal investigations - I say interrogate away.

For pre-employment I think it needs to be banned.

Batman,
   Thanks for taking a second, more "objective" look at the poly.  Read the data collected and I think you'll see our point a little clearer.

   I'm not out to protect criminals, but I'm not one, and don't want to be treated like one.

Regards,
  FormerOfficer

Batman,

Quote:


You should be aware then, that polygraph "testing" is fundamentally dependent upon the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." In addition, it depends on the secret assumption that the examinee's answers to the so-called "control" questions will be less than truthful. Indeed, the more honestly one answers the so-called "control" questions, and as a consequence experiences less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to "fail" the "test." (If any of this is news to you, you'll find it explained at Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) Those who demand honesty from others (e.g., government agencies) are setting a miserable example with their reliance on the pseudoscientific fraud that is polygraphy.

Mr. M,

I took a quick look at the document you reference, The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.  It's pretty extensive, it'll take a while to absorb it, but I want to do that and will return.

In the mean time, my heart, mind, and experiences continue to lead me to believe, regardless of the status of something like polygraph, that basic honesty and truthfulness at all levels, though at times it may be uncomfortable and even painful, is in the long run where we should all strive to be, not only on the organizational level, but on the individual level as well; for it is the individual(s) who ultimately makes up any organization be it private or government, and that organization ultimately reflects the individual.

Until then, 

Batman

sd wrote on May 19^th, 2002 at 5:15am:


Fire departments are likely to use a probable-lie "control" question "test." To learn about the different polygraph formats as well as countermeasures, see Chapters 3 and 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. With regard to illegal drug use, most agencies will accept applicants who admit to limited use of illegal drugs in the past, but will reject those found to have used them beyond a certain limit.

Batman wrote in part:

Quote:


I am aware of no scientific research supporting the notion that people exhibit any characteristic physiological response measurable by a polygraph instrument when lying, even at the individual level.

Regarding the scientific status of polygraphy, see Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there.

someone asked a ? about the directed-lie ?'s are you suppose to use countermeasures when they ask you to lie. And everyone on this board talks about gov. stuff. I need to know what kind of test are given for fire department test. If any one has taken one for fd please let me know. also how is the drug ? relevant if 90% of the population have used drugs at one time or another

Thanks Mr. M.  I must admit I am not as well researched as yourself so at this time I'll only be able to go off the quotes you provided.

By "characteristic physiological response" I assume both Iocono and Lykken are referring to a "Pinoccio" (sp?) response, wherein there is no single type response common to all people that can be identified as a response to lying.  Or are they saying that no reaction, specific to deception, can be identified even at the individual level (identifiable to that one person)?  This appear to possibly be the case, if I interpret your reference to Lykken's Tremer... propely.  He appears to be saying there is no difference simply because an individual can provide the same type response both when lying and when telling the truth.  Or is he saying that any differences would not be valid because they could look similar? 

I appreciate the references, and they certinaly provide good information for discussion, however I'm curious to know what  you think about the possibility a peron undergos changes in their physiology when they lie, and the possibility of accurately recording those changes in some way.  Thoughts?

Anyone else want to weigh in regarding this initial question?

Batman

Batman wrote:

Quote:


An individual may or may not undergo physiological changes measurable by a polygraph instrument when telling a falsehood. In any event, no reaction specific to deception has been identified. As Professor William G. Iacono notes in his article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis": 

Quote:


In the above-referenced article, Prof. Iacono goes on to explain the scientific shortcomings of the Relevant/Irrelevant "Test" and the "Control" Question "Test," techniques which attempt to circumvent this fundamental shortcoming.

In addition, as Professor David T. Lykken observed in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, any reaction that a person exhibits when telling a falsehood, he may also exhibit another time, when telling the truth.

Ok, Eisenmann has weighed in with "...the human body can show recordable signs of stress when lying...the polygraph is able to detect and record changes in the physiology of the human body."

I agree, and on the surface it appears to be a pretty basic premise; any other inputs from some of the folks I have been bantering with, Former Officer, Mr. M, or Mr. S?  (Gentlemen, I'd spell your names out each time, however I am a poor typist and would end up butchering them, sorry, do disrepect intended, it just makes it a little easier for me.)  I'd really like to have some more opinions other than Eisenmann's and mine before moving on.  Thanks! 

Batman

Okay, I'm up for something like this, and I will do my best to keep my personal experiences out and my mind open. Understand, however, that I have told the truth on a polygraph and failed, and have also lied on a polygraph and passed. I would certainly hope it is understandable that THESE particular experiences do nothing to increase my confidence in polygraphy as a whole.

Yes; I agree that the human body can show recordable signs of stress when lying. And, of course, I have no doubt that the polygraph is able to detect and record changes in the physiology of the human body.

Just because stress registers, though, is in no way indicative that the person is lying. Would you agree that a person comfortable with lying may *not* show any signs of stress or changes in their physiology while being questioned? Frankly, it is my humble opinion that a person comfortable with lying is the kind of person the polygrapher (and society as a whole) would like to catch in a lie. My assumption would be that the polygraph came into existence BECAUSE of people like this. It seems ironic that it will pass people comfortable with lying (and again, it's these people that the polygraph is SUPPOSED to catch), but register stress by law-abiding citizens and may end up with them accused of lying. 

Polygraphs have no place in pre-employment screening, period. That's what drug tests, background checks, and personal references are for. In most areas throughout the country, from what I'm told and from research on my own, there is fierce competition for jobs with a fire department (I can only assume the same is true for law enforcement jobs). In my area, an average sized fire department can expect to have over 500 applicants for only five positions. For the (very conservative estimate) 350 who make it through the written tests, physical agility, medical scenarios, interviews, and background investigations, the polygraph and medical examination by a physician are the only two things standing between them and a job. The polygraph becomes little more than a lottery machine. When you've had two years of paramedic schooling and six months of basic firefighting while holding down a full-time job, and most fire departments MAY hire once a year, it's a pretty f*&(ed up situation when you tell the entire truth and get failed for lying. Then, most departments take you off their eligibility list for up to two years. Not a pleasant experience, I can assure you.

I've said over and over that I believe the polygraph can be effective as an interrogation tool for the guilty, but it simply doesn't belong as a pre-employment requirement because it is flawed. There is just too much reliance on it as a screening tool.

Ok,

Now that we have all gotten to know each other lets enter into a legitimate discussion on the merits of polygraph, however I will ask that an open attitude be maintained, regardless of our personnel experiences, or differences of opinion.   

I'd like to start with the very basics if you folks don't mind.  It may seem somewhat elementary, but it is the best place to begin any discussion.   

I'll start; would anyone like to comment on whether there is any basis for the concept that an individual undergoes some types of changes in their physiology when they are not telling the truth?  And then a follow-on: If there is a basis for this concept, then is it possible to accurately record those changes?

Again I know this is very basic, but it will help in establishing a foundation for any further discussion.  I'm being legit here folks, no more smart remarks or sarcasim on my part.

Please note: I am not playng whatever game this "Boy Wonder" is engaging in.  Frankly, when I saw his first posting I thought that maybe I had a "kindred spirit" out there, however I am not into making up information, at any level!  So Boy Wonder, if you see this posting and want to take part in a legitimate discussion please do, but not as two different people, even if you use different IP addresses.  Thanks!

Batman

Batman,

As George suggested, perhaps you could provide some specific criticisms directing us toward any false or misleading information on the site. So far, all you've done is level personal attacks at various posters.

Quote:
 

Agreed with you 100%. The site has definitely brought out the worst in the angry polygraph examiners who see the trickery behind their abusive and deceitful trade being exposed in front of more people each day.

Quote:


As readers of this site know, the potential employers that you refer to are foisting deceit onto applicants through the use of polygraph "tests." Yes, it is true that some independent thinkers may choose to "fight fire with fire" rather than take a substantial risk at having lifelong career aspirations go down the drain.

Quote:
 

This site provides emotional support for the large number of individuals who are being falsely accused by polygraphers as drug users, drug dealers, spies, and other criminals. I believe that this is anything but unhealthy.

Quote:


We do not deny that the polygraph is an effective interrogation prop when used on those ignorant of the trickery on which it depends. Nonetheless, any reliance on polygraph "test" results is truly foolhardy.

Batman wrote on May 17^th, 2002 at 10:33pm:


I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs.   
You're correct, I was making an assumption by your attitude towards me.  If me calling you a tester offends you, I sincerly apoligise.

I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life. 
Is the glass half empty, or is it half full?  It simply is all a matter of perception.  I believed in the poly until the first time I told the truth and failed the question.....  Upon doing a little research into the validity of the test I cam upon this site.... Thank the Lord.  This is the MOST informative site out there, and in MHO speaks the truth!  if you can't handle the truth, stick you head in the sand.... aka - "Ostrich syndrome".
   
Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations.  Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance.  Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue.  Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill.  Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!

Well, you act as if you have an obvious stake in the matter..... What concern is it of yours - i.e.- my background?  Maybe you're just a nosy bas#### who gets his jollies off of screwing people over too.... Only you can answer that question about YOUR character.  But to JUDGE mine by a single post SHOWS your narrow-mindness....


Come on, lighten up, have some fun with it.  Enjoy the good give and take of a message board such as this.  Polygraph is the least of our worries.  I'm just a caped crusader for honesty.   
I don't think there is ANYTHING funnly about ruining perfectly good peoples career intentions based off of a junk science/machine test/interrogation....  We have bigger fish to fry than to be concerned with how many joints someone smoked in college, or what his/her political views are....
You claim to be a "caped crusader for honesty" - well I challenge you to "crusade" the "honesty" presented by the author of the site - i.e.- Polygraphs are NOT lie detectors........

By the way, why are you a "former officer"?  Didn't get BUSTED did ya?
I should expect no less an unprofessional comment by you..... But I'll entertain it..... Actually, we were renting in one city and paying a mortgage in another city and decided that we did not want to sell our home, so we moved (out of state).   I'm in the final background check with a local department here, and should be back in the saddle again, as getting a LE job sometimes takes more than a year. So until I get another commission, I'm a former -officer.  If I were to return to my former department, I'd be re-hired in an instant.  My record is impeccable. So much for your slander...

Batman wrote on May 17^th, 2002 at 5:41pm:


Batman,

If you believe that I have written anything about polygraphy that is untrue or otherwise misleading, why not share that with readers here, rather than arguing ad hominem?

FormerOfficer,

You must have missed the brief exchange Batman and I had. You said you'd taken items from the military and sold them so you could keep your car and car insurance. He, somehow, read into your statement and declared this: 

"Sounds to me like you're doing a lot of "justifying".  Kind of like the guy who robbed the bank so he could put bread on the family table.  Nice fairy tale, but not reality.  You could have sold the car rather then sell drugs, but we all make choices in life, then we have to live with them."

I replied:

"This so clearly illustrates that you are accustomed to seeing or hearing WHAT YOU WANT, instead of what was actually written or spoken. Where in FormerOfficer's post did he say he sold drugs? It's not there."

I'm still not sure how, but he seemed to think that one of your last posts proved that he was correct about you selling drugs...???   

Batman, I truly hope you don't think that I would discourage any testing (or whatever you'd like to call it) that would lessen, IN ANY WAY, the chances of these potential incidents laid forth by you: 

"I'll leave you all with this last thought, the next individual you encourage to employ countermeasures, and to practice deceipt, may be the one who abuses your child, rapes your wife, breaks into your house, steals your car, murders your neighbor, or engages in an act of espionage or terrorism against your country."

I've stated repeatedly that I think the "lie detector" has it's place when dealing with criminals and/or ignorant people who have very likely committed a crime. I would like to hear it called an "interrogation tool" rather than a "lie detector", because for the love of God IT IS NOT A LIE DETECTOR AT ALL! To that end, I cannot state strongly enough that it has NO place in pre-employment screening. If so much weight is given on the results of a polygraph, then it must be flawless. And it's been proven that it is NOT flawless. Go ahead and hook it up to any person accused of a crime who's willing to take it, or to someone trying for parole...but DON'T use it to decide that I lied about something and therefore don't deserve the job I'm in the process of applying for. It's just f*&^ing ridiculous to me. That's my stance on the matter.

   

Former Officer:

I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs.   

I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life.  Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations.  Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance.  Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue.  Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill.  Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!

Come on, lighten up, have some fun with it.  Enjoy the good give and take of a message board such as this.  Polygraph is the least of our worries.  I'm just a caped crusader for honesty.

By the way, why are you a "former officer"?  Didn't get BUSTED did ya?

Batman

Oh, BTW batman,
   
The first Poly I took, the tester said I spiked on the Drug Usage question.

   The second (same questions, same format) I passed the question.

So - Which one is right?(the second one of course....I don't/have'nt/will not ever do drugs)

Hmmmmmmmm

Kind of blows a hole in your theory of absolutness...

Batman wrote on May 17^th, 2002 at 7:41pm:


Just where in the hell do you get that from?  I never said I used the stuff, but if someone did at one time, and they have stopped, and the time frame was a LONG time ago, i don't see any reason to immediatly DQ a person based on that knowledge.

As far as your ludicris assumption that I sold or used drugs, YOU ARE QUITE MISTAKEN.  I've NEVER sold or used any drug substance in my life. You can argue all day that I'm a liar, but all I can say is it is the truth.  Kind of hard to be in the military since High School and go straight from that to the police force, both of which use drug tests (random) and still get out of the service with two Honorable discharges and leave the PD with re-enstatement privilages.....

Geez some of you testers/poly believers need to receive a dose of your own medicine.....

Your smugness is indicative of your willingness to screw good people over IMHO.

Eisenmann,

The point of my "last thought" was not that someone who uses countermeasures and "passes" a polygraph would then be in a position to do the things mentioned; it's that this site is visited by people who have commited those acts and they use the information posted here to try and get away with it.  This site encourages not only good people to be dishonest, it also trys to teach dishonest people how be better at it.

For Former Officer:

Thanks!  You have pretty much confirmed something that Eisenmann wanted to call me out on.  I'll bet if you and I continued any type of dialogue on this site I'd have you confessing to that drug sale in no time.  Glad to see you gave up the use of crack, that stuff will kill ya    

Batman

Batman,
I have a tendency to agree that debate on this topic may get us nowhere; and I certainly don't expect drastic changes in polygraph testing to occur  because of what's posted and debated on this site! I just find it unbelievable that so much faith is placed in machines and examiners, in our country, in this day and age. The mere fact that "experts" (pro-polygraph experts, no less) have a problem with this site, and with the existence of countermeasures, proves that the test is not perfect. True, nothing really IS perfect, but to use this one instrument which will deny someone gainful employment, or have him/her labeled as a liar, is completely foolish. We're going to depend on this one instrument to tell us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the subject is or is not suitable for a position...regardless of his qualifications, sparkling background check, personal/character/business references, et cetera??? And yes, that is EXACTLY what happens. It's happened to me, and it's happened to friends and family as well. The fact that this much faith is put into this one test, in my eyes, throws the "innocent until proven guilty" stance we are supposed to have as Americans right out the window. 

While I understand the point of your analogy, it's comparing two completely different things. So the man experiences a lot of pain with one medical procedure, then decides to complain about ALL of them. There are thousands of different procedures in medicine, from ingrown toenail surgery to tonsillectomies to brain tumor removals. Polygraphy uses one procedure (unless you want to count CVSA's, which would bring it up to two). They're very specialized. They also DO NOT detect lies! 

I also don't see where someone employing countermeasures to pass a lie detector would be in a position to do any of those things you mentioned in your last paragraph. How would passing a polygraph make that individual more likely to commit those crimes? The only instance I can think of would be someone who gets paroled because he passed a polygraph. If that's the case, then it would mean the "system" is depending wholly on the results of that polygraph to release someone from prison. And that thought, Batman, I find most disturbing of all.

Eisenmann:

I really don't know how worthwhile any debate on this topic would be.  It is apparent, based on Mr. M's posting, that the great majority of the folks who post on this site are "zealots" against the use of polygraph, and proponents of living the lie.

There are no perfect tools in any trade, however to say so definitively and/or use such narrow language as 
- "no logical inference may be drawn..."
- "there is no way to differentiate between..."
- "it has no scientific basis, no validity..."
- "it is easily circumvented..."
leaves little room for debate.

Words and phrases like "no way", "it is", and "has no", display absolutely no room for give and take.  Mr. M obviously believes he has been seriously harmed in some by the use of polygraph and is now willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

How about this for an analogy.  A man undergos a medical procedure, however during this procedure he feels more pain than he expected.  As a result, the man decides that all medical procedures are bad and must be banned.  The man is not a medical doctor, he is not a surgeon.  He simply does a tremendous amount of document research and then proclaims himself to be some level of expert in the science of medicine and surgery.  He starts a web site, much like this one, and proceeds to deride the practice of medicine and all those affiliated with it.  He provides medical "guidance" to anyone and everyone who will listen.  He is educated, and articulate therefore those to whom he gives this guidance believe he must be an "expert" in his field; when in fact he has no pratical experience, and his only real world exposure to what he rails against is the pain he felt during his medical procedure.

I'm not sure this is a healthy foundation for debate on any topic, expecially one as controversial as the use and validity of polygraph.  All this site appears to have accomplished is to bring out the worst in people.  It plays upon their fears and attempts to convince them that in order to overcome those fears they must be deceitful in their dealings with potential employers and various other organizations to include law enforcement agencies.   

I'll leave you all with this last thought, the next individual you encourage to employ countermeasures, and to practice deceipt, may be the one who abuses your child, rapes your wife, breaks into your house, steals your car, murders your neighbor, or engages in an act of espionage or terrorism against your country.

Batman, Over & Out!

Quote:


Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it as I am mine.  If I were'nt interested and currently pursuing a federal career, I'd be glad to post non-anonymously.   

However, as stated before, a few of you people must be entirely ignorant of the hiring process, and the bias faced.   
I knew a guy who got turned down because he has a confederate flag tattoo on his arm, been there since the service at age 18.  You could not see it even in short sleeve shirts, but the agency chose to discriminate (politically) against him anyway.   
 
  This is the reality many good people face.

Batman wrote on May 15^th, 2002 at 11:18pm:



Sounds to me like you're doing a lot of "justifying".  Kind of like the guy who robbed the bank so he could put bread on the family table.  Nice fairy tale, but not reality.  You could have sold the car rather then sell drugs, but we all make choices in life, then we have to live with them. 

Batman,
   I am quite aware of the wrong things I have done, and have not tried to "justify" them, but rather "explain" them.  The main problem encountered is the PERSONAL BIAS of the tester, and the Political bias of the agency.  Their and your reasoning has NOTHING at all to do with FAIRNESS, you and testers like you are judgemental SOBs.

Never would like to think that just because someone made mistakes in their youth they would be labeled as a bad person forever, however to continue to live the lies is not a glowing character trait.   
  And when someone actually spills everything, then they are judged (routinely) on past actions that in many cases have NOTHING to do with the present.  So what if someone smoked crack once or twice in college.   No they're 28-30 and have'nt touched the stuff in years, yet if they admit the usuage of anything more than weed, they WILL be DQ'd.   Same applies for my situation, on top of the fact that I've never USED, SOLD or even been around drugs except when I arrested someone for it, I popped on the Poly for DRUG USAGE......  THAT's why I'm here at this site.  I got screwed over by your fancy BS meter machine



Very few agencies, be they Federal or civilian, are expecting to hire saints in this day and age. 
Obviously you are ignorant about the hiring process then...  I've been through 4 in two states, 2 with poly, 2 without.  There are several things that if you are honest about your background will end up with disqualifing you.   
1.  Heavy Drug usage
2.  Association with any group (political or otherwise) that they see as "radical" (no matter how long ago it was)
3.  More than 1 DUI/DWI and in many cases, one is enough, no matter if it happened 10 years ago or what.


There is somewhat of an expectation that potential employees will have done things (like drug use) in their youth.  What also is expected is some level of honesty.  It seems that the prevailing attitude on this site is lie and cheat to get what you want, and then rationalize it with telling everyone how twisted the system is. 

No, actually, you are VERY wrong about that.  many of the threads I have read here have URGED people to go the "whole truth" or "spill you guts" method, but some things, as I have disclosed above, CANNOT be disclosed, lest your app be disposed of, and you recieve the cordial "thanks for applying"....
   This country is in dire straits, they NEED good people in Police/Fed agencies.  To continue to use this farce of a science to disuade good people from joining is hurting our national security and the security of the people.  People who perpetuate this LIE, like yourself, are MOST responsable for the lack of qualified people out there.


As for polygraph, your ignorance speaks volumes.  A persons state of mind is exaclty what they're all about. 

   Well, having taken two of them, I beg to differ.  They tell NOTHING of a persons "state of mind" nor are they a "moral indicator".   They are a Bullshit method of "science" if you can call it that, that is used to discriminate ROUTINELY potential candidates that they don't want.

   You can make me out as the bad guy, but I have commendation upon commendation, and MANY letters of appreciation for the work I have done in Law Enforcement, and two Honorable Discharges from the Military, with many medals.   
   And BTW - Everyone lies, including you.   You could say you never do, but that'd be a lie....

I just realized I didn't acknowledge one of the points in your latest response, Batman. My mistake! A quote from your post:

"the only "lie detector" in any polygraph setting is the Examinee.  He/she provides the data, then it's up to the Examiner to conduct an evaluation.  Therein lies the weakness of the technique.  Improperly trained Examiners, and those not subject or held accountable to some higher level of review are the problem."

I could not possibly agree more that this is the problem. The examinee gives the "data". Then it's interpreted by someone who, well...interprets data. If the examiner is improperly trained, and decides that someone was deceptive, then that someone loses a job! Or has his/her reputation tarnished. That "someone" (i.e. a HUMAN BEING), must now contend with disqualification from a job, or a stronger accusation of wrongdoing, because some jackass "examiner" says so. This has been my point all alone. Polygraphs do not discern the truth from lies. Polygraphs.....do not discern the truth from lies. POLYGRAPHS...will never, EVER be able to discern the truth from lies. End of my argument!