Nonombre,

I would surmise that you don't work for a federal agency.  Correct?

Also, as a polygraph examiner you should have been subjected to more than 20 as part of your training.  Therefore it is not unheard of.

Please check yourself before referring to similarities between your profession and those of the medical profession.  They are NOT the same and should not be compared as such.  I regularly hear comparisons between the funeral industry and auto sales.  Again not the same.  The funeral industry would more fairly be compared against the hotel industry as service is what is provided.  Find a more suitable comparison.  You are not a doctor so do not portray yourself as such.

PailR wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 6:47pm:


"Twenty or so polys..."  That sure is a lot of polygraph exams.    I mean, are you sure?!  How is it you have taken that many?  Isn't that like have twenty root canals?, or twenty open heart surgeries?  I mean, Damn! that is more tests than I have ever heard of anyone having to take, even registered sex offenders.

Nonombre

Why fear the poly?
Well... depends on how much is at stake when you are subject to taking one.
My experience over the past 10 years has been the following:
Lied -- Failed
Lied -- Passed
Truth -- Failed
Truth -- Passed

Very few of the twenty or so polys I have taken were in the first two categories. Most times I have told the truth. If I had not found one very hghly regarded polygrapher with whom I have no problem passing *sic*, then I would likely not be alive to write this post. Now you couldn't PAY me to see another polygrapher when I am forced to take one.

Even given that the polygraph is a load of hooey, who gives you the test makes a load of difference. The reason I say that is because there are some who are in it for the money. If they are aware that you  may have to re-take a poly as a result of "failing" one, then that type of polygrapher will find your results to be of the non-passing variety and will also have a policy of charging you for each time you take the test. With the rest...well, let's just say it is a crap-shoot. "Ya pays yer money an' ya takes yer chances." As long as you are not guilty of anything (or ADMIT to any guilt (and for God's sake don't ACT guilty unless you want to get HUNG!)), maybe you will come out okay. Acting as though you have a guilty conscience will get you a 'deception indicated' every time, no matter whether you tell the truth or not.

  why in the first place would you allow yourself to be polygraphed anyway?   if its for a job, then there are other jobs that you can go to.  a polygraph is just some made up mumbo-jumbo to scare you into "telling the truth"  the truth afterall is really relative to what you see and what you fear.  its all on you, not what someone wants to sell you.

Just never ADMIT to anything DURING the exam that you did not admit to in the pre screening or on your application.  If you don't ADMIT they can still fail you but on what basis?  Then they are opening themselves up to lawsuits.  The problem is MOST people ADMIT to things during the exam when they are accused of lying or being deceptive. 

Marty wrote on Jun 25^th, 2005 at 10:04pm:

I don't disagree with this.  In what way would it hurt whatever accuracy the polygraph already has?  Increasing the number of Inconclusives and to a lesser extent, False Positives?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2005 at 5:48pm:


Please understand why polygraphers often do this. Sure it is disingenuous, but polygraphers don't say this because they enjoy lying or otherwise messing with you, but to increase the accuracy. They don't expect you to not lie as a result of this admonition. What they are looking for is an increased response differential between control Q's and relevants. An examinee who is NDI on a relevant is expected to react less to the relevant by an increased belief that the polygraph will correctly detect he is not lying. That same examinee is expected to fear the control question more, believing (falsely) he may be disqualified if found deceptive on the control.

The increased public knowledge of how the polygraph works may be more of a threat to whatever accuracy it has than the knowledge of specific countermeasure technique.

marty

It’s interesting to me that whenever someone reports that they were 100% honest and “passed” their polygraph, the pro-polygraph community often professes belief in and endorses their story.  That person is assumed to be truthful and their story is then held up as an example of why the polygraph is such a useful tool.   

However, whenever someone claims they were 100% honest and “failed” their polygraph, they are often accused of withholding information, or attempting countermeasures, or outright deception.

If one is trying to determine the value of something, it seems clear that you would have to consider all the available evidence in order to render a fair judgment.  Selecting the evidence that agrees with your opinion and disregarding any evidence that doesn’t is patently ridiculous.   

Aside from variations of the “you must have had a bad/unprofessional examiner” response no one in the pro-polygraph community seems willing to even attempt to address the ever-growing amount of anecdotal evidence that examinees can be 100% truthful in every aspect and still “fail” their polygraph examination.   Why is that?   

Any response by a polygraph examiner would be appreciated.

thevet2 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2005 at 4:29am:


So, if the polygraph is so good and so accurate, why is it inadmissable in a court of law?  Surely, if the polygraph is as accurate and as good as you claim it to be, then a court of law would have no problems whatsoever in allowing the results of a polygraph exam as evidence in a court of law, would you think?  Or is it because a court of law knows that the polygraph isn't as accurate and good as you claim it to be and because as such, makes polygraph results inadmissable as evidence.

I would have to agree. I don't believe it's that fair, I was simply lucky that the machine found me to be honest. I didn't have anything to hide, but I'm sure if circumstances were changed only slightly (i.e. diff. examiner) it may have been different (that shouldn't be the case though). 

-polypasser

well, poly, i was in the same boat as you and I failed 4 straight FBI exams. I am glad you passed but I think a lot of people are being incorrectly denied employment for which they qualify.

No, I was not asked whether I had researched the polygraph or not, simply whether I had been through one before.

polypasser1231 wrote on May 14^th, 2005 at 9:57pm:


Were you asked if you researched the polygraph prior?  Were you honest with that question?

Polypasser:

I am glad that you did not have a bad experience with the polygraph unlike the countless others who have posted otherwise on this site. If I had sailed through my poly after telling the truth, I would still think they work, too. However, the truth is, they do not work.

I thought honesty was the best policy before I took an FBI polygraph. As far as "professional" examiners are concerned, I don't know about that as I've never encountered one.

Unless your the other 50% (I find it hard to believe that 50% of people that take the poly for the FBI are being deceptive) that fail the poly for the FBI. Do a seach and read some of the horror stories. Yes honesty is the best policy, but guess what sometimes that is not enough.

I recently took a polygraph for employment with the FBI. I saw this site prior to taking the exam. I took my exam, and Passed. I was completely honest, and didn't have any problems answering the examiners questions. The questions were thoroughly explained, and each part of the exam was conducted in a professional manner. I am NOT an examiner, but after my experience with the polygraph, I must admit that it is not something to be worried about. I was extremely nervous about taking it as I had never done it before. Perhaps I was simply someone that the "good ole boys" that I've seen mentioned on this site wanted to join their organization, but to me, I believe honesty + a seasoned, professional examiner will result in success. 

Polypasser

Quote:



Was just re-reading the thread and saw your monitor note....

It does not surprise me, they have been doing that for a while.

I have not been around for a while just checking in...

Good job on the monitoring   Now I don't have to bother replying to the monkey with the wrench.....

checking wrote on Apr 1^st, 2005 at 2:17am:


At least here ALL are welcome to post their views either for or against the poly.  Here they can slam the posters against (including George) or slam the examiners.  Unlike the "pro poly" sites where you would be banned if you disagreed with their views.
Just one example of things that make you go Hmmmm.

How come both sides can post here but only one side can post on the other? ??? 

Posts in this message thread by "thevet2" and "checking" originated from the same IP address, indicating that they were written by a single author. It seems we have here yet another frightened polygrapher forging posts in an effort to disinform visitors to this website. This is curious behavior coming from a member of a profession that purports to be "Dedicated to Truth" (American Polygraph Association motto).

Other polygraphers who have played similar games include:

AnalSphincter/LoopyLuWho

usarmyofficer2004

PolySucks/Cancerman

Policeman

nopoly/POLYSCORE

Zena/Boy_Wonder

thevet2,

You might also want to check out the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report regarding government use of pre-employment polygraph screening. It's an independent, unbiased scientific study--also found on this site or through any search engine. Be leery of studies funded by the polygraph community--nothing but propaganda to further this junk science. Always consider the source--ask yourself what the entity has to gain from the study? You shouldn't feel bad about not knowing much about this invalid testing procedure. I didn't either until I took a poly, told the truth and failed. I would say most people, until they know better, believe the polygraph is accurate.

Good luck on reading that material.  Very exaustive, I would suggest that you also get some pro polygraph materials to make it fair and balanced.  George seems to be very vindictive regarding any pro polygraph materials.

I have printed out the lie behind the lie detector.  I cannot respond at this time, lots of reading material.  Once completed I will try to respond in a sensible manner.  I did look on this site and find several studies reported to validate the polygraph, and have not had time to read those either.  May be I will support your conclusions.  Have to do a lot of reading first and have limited time.  Thanks for the advice.

Quote:


TheVet, there is no need to apologize. This is an open forum and we welcome everyone's opinion, regardless of view.

If you get a few free moments, I suggest taking a look at the free e-book The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which is available for download here on this site. It explains the polygraph process in full (and the trickery behind it).

I'm curious to hear your opinion of the process after learning the background behind it.

take a pd poly sry

well then I hope I get an examiner as good as you had.   I take a poly in a week for and my background day before.