nikormat wrote on Jun 27^th, 2002 at 12:01am:

 
Nikormat,
 
Congratulations and thanks for your kind words; of course, the credit is not all mine. The launching of this website, as well as the writing of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, was from the beginning a collaborative effort.

I hope you'll consider joining us in working to expose and put an end to polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. You mentioned in another post that your polygraph was with the Los Angeles Police Department. If you ever seek assignment to a special detail like narcotics, organized crime, or the LAPD's antiterrorist division, you'll have to go through yet another polygraph interrogation. (See, for example, the statement of J. Daine.)

One small way you can help is by participating in the message board, as you are doing now. You might wish to register; doing so will allow you to edit your posts, exchange private messages with other registered users, and give you the option to receive notification by e-mail when replies are posted to message threads in which you've posted.

Another way you can help is by telling your friends and relatives about AntiPolygraph.org and how polygraph "testing" really works (and doesn't). Too many Americans are under the false impression that polygraphy is an admittedly imperfect but nonetheless science-based methodology. When made aware of the true nature of the procedure (especially the trickery behind the so-called "control" questions), most people quickly recognize polygraphy for the dangerous fraud that it is.

And importantly, it would be helpful if you would write a letter to your elected representatives asking them to support legislation to ban polygraphy from the workplace. At the federal level, this should be done by removing the exemptions from the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act.

At the state level, and with specific reference to California, see the California Polygraph Reform Initiative forum.

Again, congratulations on passing, and I wish you well in the rest of the application process.

nikormat wrote on Jun 27^th, 2002 at 12:01am:


Nikormat,
I know exactly what you mean about having a guilty conscience.  I'm quite sure I can walk into a polygraphy session with nothing more than a few bad judgements under my belt, but I tend to be big on self-editing and self-doubt.  I'm sure that's another way polygraphs tend to be biased against those who make extra efforts to be truthful.  Simply being in an interrogation is enough to elicit substantial self-doubt.

I have a friend who tried to join the CIA who had the same problem.  Ended up being unable to pass the poly, and no, Eastwood, Batman, Polycop, etc., he WASN'T actually a spy, as the polygraph indicated.

Funny that polygraphers and their machines purport to be the voices of conscience for their "subjects".  Were I a polygrapher, I don't think my conscience would let me stay in my profession.  But I guess when you lie every day to people in the course of your job, you find ways to lie to yourself, too.
Skeptic

Congratulations, Nikormat. Any specifics you'd care to share about your interrogation, such as similarities between your experience and what we read about in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector I'm sure would be interesting reading.

Thank you all so very much for your posts, and thank you, George for everthing you've done thus far.  I passed my polygraph test a few days ago and I employed the countermeasures as instructed.  Although I had nothing to lie about or hide, I have an extremely guilty conscience and knew that the slightest doubt that entered my mind would sink me. 
I have to say that my polygrapher was extremely kind and asked mostly control questions the entire test.  He encouraged doubt and confusion during the control questions by telling my how important integrity was to the force.   
Thank you Thank you Thank you!