I thought you weren't going to post here anymore or was that just under your other user name? I tried to help you by advising you to be honest about your past. Backing out is always an option. Background investigations can be pretty thorough and intrusive--you never know what may be uncovered. If you get caught in a tangled web, don't say I didn't warn you.

polyfool,

I see you are now helping others pass.

Dean-O:

You are correct. It is an oversight on your part. The book provides a clear explanation as to how one should answer the control questions. You should read chapters three and four closely before taking your test. According to TLBLD, one should make only minor admissions to controls (ex. stealing as a child.) Just think about it, if you deny,deny, deny everything, it's going to look suspicious. No one could honestly say they've never lied about anything. My advice to you is read up--you want to be prepared for the BS the polygrapher is going to throw your way.

Matty,

I share your frustration, and I can see why the two principal founders of this board/book authors are so passionate about stopping this method of employee screening.

Unfortunately, I posted a new topic on this very question this evening regarding how to best answer the control questions.

Aside from God himself, everyone-at some point in their lives-has told a lie.  Do you "lie" about lying-so that you WILL NOT FAIL?  Indeed, this is a flawed test.

My question, fwiw, was how to answer these questions.  Likely an oversight on my part, the book did not give a clear explanation as to how one should answer those questions (ie Have you ever lied?  Have you ever stole?)

Is "deny, deny, deny" the best method? (while employing countermeasures such as mental arithmatic)

From what I have read, you waive your right to any legal action when you are forced to sign the waiver before the "test" is given, therefore giving the witch doctors free reign to perform their mischief and flunk people who they decide they do not like for whatever reason... 

Maybe this is a case for the ACLU...not that I am a fan of them in any way...

Quote:


People need to start filing lawsuits....this will be the best way to stop this nonsense.

Matty wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:37am:

I agree.  My point was that the only way of being sure of not “failing” a polygraph exam is to not take one in the first place.

If you are intent upon being a police officer (like I was) then you have to take polygraphs.  Since I didn’t know about countermeasures when I was applying, and I had no knowledge of the polygraph at all, I just kept taking them and “failing” them.  I continued to tell the truth on each one and continued to be absolutely baffled when I would “fail” due to supposed cocaine use, fighting/assaults, and larcenies.  It wasn’t until after three straight “failures” that I finally passed, and I approached the fourth test exactly the same way as the first three, and answered all the questions the same way.  I am living proof that going into the exam and telling the truth is absolutely no guarantee of success.

Good luck.

Not playing is not an option for those seeking employment as a LEO where the polygraph is part of the pre-employment agenda...

Matty wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:20pm:

It is a no-win situation.  If you proceed through the “test” in a completely honest fashion, and hold absolutely nothing back, you might pass and you might not.  It all depends on the examiner and their subjective opinions regarding your reactions.

If you proceed through the “test” in a completely deceptive fashion, holding back anything you feel could be damaging and lying shamelessly about everything else, you might pass and you might not.  Again, it all depends on the examiner and their subjective opinions regarding your reactions.

There are plenty of people who have been truthful and failed (like me, more than once) and plenty of people who have been deceptive and passed.  The reverse is true in both cases as well.

It’s a no-win situation in that there is nothing you can do to ensure you pass the test.  Being completely honest might or might not help.  Using countermeasures effectively might or might not help.  The only winning move is not to play.

If an examiner assumes that a person will lie in response to a control question, then wouldn't a DI be a slam dunk?  ???

Couldn't that examiner harass the examinee for lying and disqualify them if they so desired, knowing that in all probability the examinee lied on the control questions? 

It seems like if they want to show that someone is a liar, they can do so if the examinee lies on the relevant OR the control questions. It seems like a no win situation...