Deputy Dog:

I agree with you that building or not building rapport with the examiner during the pre-test affects the examiner's opinion of the examinee, possibly influencing the overall outcome. Humans form opinions of others, even if they've only known them for a short period of time, it's only natural. Some people are just better at connecting with others. On the flip side, some examiners may not allow the examinee to build a rapport, keeping them at a distance, which seems more fair. However, there can be disadvantages to that as well, such as the examiner missing signs and overlooking the obvious.

Confidence is a good thing with the poly, but only as you say, if you know all about the game. Self-confidence can hurt the uninformed examinee because he/she doesn't second guess or question themselves on the controls, which makes them feel easy when answering them. 

Polygraph examiners sure can say some stupid things during a poly--it's really quite insulting that they believe examinees are so dumb as to believe their BS. They really need to work on their stories--I mean, if you're going to be a liar, at least be a creative one.

This brings up an interesting point about the "selling yourself " aspect during the pre-test. I'm convinced that this plays a bigger role than most think when it comes to passing/failing.
You have to start selling your self when you go in the door and watch out for the bad body signals. It's easier to do when your informed about the poly and it's operation because it has a direct impact on the confidence level you have when you go in. At least it has for me. Eversince I read the book and became informed, I'm not nervous and can concentrate on the JOB at hand  (producing a truthful chart). I feel that I can shoot-the-bull with the examiner and still be on my guard against the "rookie" interrogation techniques.
I remember one session recently when the examiner went into this story about how everyone bends the rules once in a while. I just sat there  quietly and listened because I knew what was coming next! He said that  he himself had once taken advantage of a mislabeled price tag at a store.
He said he bought several of the items and, wringing his hands, left the store only to have the items stolen out of his vehicle that night. lol..... to which I replied... It served you right!!lol  All he could say was... " yea I guess it did"

Biases are present in some fashion in all all hiring processes, that is true. For example, a hiring manager may get a good feeling about a particular candidate because they have great interviewing skills or maybe they're very attractive. Perhaps, they are not the best person for the job, but they land it, anyway. Oh well, that means the other candidates won't get a shot at that particular job--something they can all live with.

However, bias in the polygraph room takes on a whole new meaning because that one person (the examiner) has the ability to end an entire career based on a guess while administering a subjective test. That's totally unacceptable and wrong. 

Nonombre:
If you say that you don't have any biases, you are just kidding yourself because as fair and impartial as you may try to be, you are after all, still human. All humans have some degree of bias, however subtle. Although I suppose, one could argue that polygraph examiners are not really human and hence, incapable of emotion.  

The FBI thinks it has the answer to examiner bias: The Polygraph Unit's Quality Control Department. I was assured that my test would be given a fair shot because someone besides the examiner would make the final decision. What a joke.

nonombre wrote on Jul 16^th, 2005 at 4:21am:

Nonombre,

I understand your point as well, I think.  You are implying that none of the subjective aspects of the hiring process are perfect.  I agree.

The oral boards I’ve gone to consisted of between five and nine people.  The more people are in the room, the lower the chance is of some sort of arbitrary prejudice affecting the outcome.  If I have five people on my oral board, and one or two of them don’t like my hair, their prejudice should be balanced out by the other people.  At the very least they might recognize their prejudice as stupid and be reluctant to voice it.  (I cannot imagine telling the other officers I’ve sat with on oral boards that the last candidate shouldn’t be hired because I thought his tie was ugly, or his hair was too long. Saying those things would make me look stupid, not the candidate.)  

Such is not the case in a polygraph exam.  You are dealing with a single person’s prejudices and opinions.  If you happen to have a hairstyle the examiner doesn’t like you may fail before you start.  If you happen to remind the examiner of his favorite nephew, you may pass before you start.

I don’t know of any police agencies that conduct oral boards with only a single person on the board.  I also don’t know of any polygraph examiners who have multiple examiners in the room conducting the exam.

Getting back to the question you so adroitly sidestepped…  Let’s change it around a bit, and suppose that your agency has decided to send every sworn officer to a private polygrapher as a routine check to make sure no one is on the take.  You go through your exam, tell the complete truth about never having taken a single favor or a single dime, and you fail.  Your chief calls you in and tells you that you will be terminated.  Was that to happen, do you think you’d still be writing on these boards in support of the polygraph?

Nonombre...
I didn't mean to suggest that you, have done that, but you must know some who have....it happens every day.

Matty wrote on Jul 16^th, 2005 at 4:32am:


Matty,

I for one have never "failed" an applicant before the test...never.  Please don't say, "As you well know."  That is an incorrect assumption.

Regards,

Nonombre
   

Nonombre,
As you well know, many times an applicant is failed by the examiner before the test begins, simply because the examiner may already have a bias or doesn't like the way the person looks...yada, yada, yada.
I'm not sure what your point is. 

The bottom line is that polygraphs have no valid scientific data to back up their validity, if they did, they would be admissable in court and as we all know, they are not for that very reason

Also, if they were so valid, then why have trials at all? Why not just give suspects polygraphs and send them to jail or set them free based on if they pass or fail?? How safe would society be then??   

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 3:44pm:


Sergeant1107 ,

I understand your point.  I truly do.  However, what if I had studied and planned my whole life to go to work for the local police department, and was denied employment, because two of the members of the panel decided they did not like my accent, perhaps the way I part my hair?

By the way, I part it down the middle.  According to some that means I must be a "doper."   

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 3:33am:

Nonombre,
Do you think your opinion would be any different if you had been completely honest and failed?  Or would you have been willing to forego your career, knowing that even though you were being unfairly denied employment at least there will be some criminals caught at some point in the future?  Would you have been willing to take one for the team?

Jeffery wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 2:25am:


I was completely honest on my own pre-employment polygraph examination.

There were no "controls" asked during my test.

I was administered (and passed) an R/I examination

Nonombre
 

nonombre wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 1:47am:

Had you been completely honest on your own pre-emply poly, including controls, you may be thinking differently here.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 2:55pm:


Sergeant1107 ,
 
Concerning statement #1.  I must disagree with you.  While I feel there is a possibility that a truthful person could indeed fail a polygraph examination.  I disagree that it is "likely."
 
Concerning statement #2.  If you are implying that any of a number of subjective pre-employment  tests, or evaluations that happen to be less than 100% accurate are "flawed," then indeed polygraph is "flawed."
 
But to say, " (if) the test is flawed then it shouldn’t be used at all,"  well, you have just doomed to the trash bin, the pre-employment interview, the psychological test, the MMPI, the oral board, various forms of psychological stress tests, and a good part of the background investigation (You know they ask people's subjective opinion as to whether or not you are suitable for a career in law enforcement).
 
Yes, like most of the other parts of the process, polygraph testing is not "perfect."  That is why I suggest putting most of these stages on an equal footing, and deciding on an overall "score."
 
I still believe it to be a good compromise.
 
Nonombre

Quote:

Drew,
I don’t disagree with you.  I was merely trying to forestall what has become the standard response from many polygraph supporters when asked about the problem of false positives.

Sergeant1107,

You write in part to nonombre:

Quote:


As I have said before, the malpractice added to the process by any non-compliant (to industry standards) and willfully unethical polygraph examiner does not stand alone or even foremost in the analysis of the foolishness that we know as "lie detection."  It is merely that which is added to the QUACKERY that is practiced by each and every practitioner of "lie detection."  There is no theoretical basis for said practice and there exists no validity in the day-to-day use of said practice as a diagnostic instrument.

nonombre wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:15am:

Nonombre,
It does seem a bit disingenuous of you to express concern about someone who uses countermeasures (even though they are not intending to be deceptive) and as a result get disqualified from a job they could have otherwise obtained.

You hit the nail on the head when you predicted my response.  I am far more concerned with the people who were not deceptive, did not attempt countermeasures, and still “failed” their polygraph, and you should be, too.  Their cases tend to support the conclusion that the polygraph is too wildly inconsistent to be used in any kind of pre-employment screening.

Forget about the whole issue of countermeasures for a moment.  It’s an interesting tangent to wander down but it diverts our attention from the heart of the matter.  It is not only possible, but likely that a truthful person with no disqualifying incidents in his past will go through a polygraph exam without being deceptive and still fail.  It has happened to me on more than one occasion, and it has happened to many other people who post on this message board.  In my opinion such incidents point to a basic problem with the polygraph.

You have been forthright (which I appreciate) in your acknowledgement of false-positives being a problem, yet your solution is less than practical.  It almost sounds like your plan concedes that polygraph testing is flawed therefore it should only be assigned a place on a point scale.  I believe that if we know the test is flawed then it shouldn’t be used at all.  At least it shouldn’t be used for pre-employment screening (I have read it is more accurate on specific issue testing, but I have no experience in such matters.)

Please don’t use the tired old “there are bad examiners out there” excuse to explain away the false-positives.  Even though I can believe there are bad examiners in your profession I find it hard to believe that every single incident of a truthful person being labeled “deceptive” was due to an unskilled or unethical examiner.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 4:13pm:


Sergeant,
 
Allow me to reiterate that when I brought up how some departments and agencies define countermeasures, I was simply reporting a commonly used (and very traditional) definition.  I was making no statements about my own personal beliefs.  Still that definition is very much out there and it is based on that definition that certain examiners and their agencies will immediately brand the examinees attempting countermeasures as "Deceptive."
 
An interesting point to consider is before web sites like this was out thee, I would guess that the VAST majority of examinees attempting countermeasures were in fact guilty people trying to "beat" the test.  In fact, I still believe that most of the examinees attempting CM's, are indeed doing so because they fear being caught in a lie.
 
However, I also realize that because of this site and others that actively encourage truthful people to engage in countermeasures, the dynamic has indeed changed a bit.  Therein lies the point I am about to make.
 
Based on what I have seen thus far, I fear there are a significant number of people who following the advice of this website, have gone into a polygraph exam and practiced countermeasures unnecessarily.
 
Perhaps in some cases, their activities have "helped" them in some way (although I tend to doubt it).  But who I am truly concerned about are the truthful people, who based on what they have been told on this site, have practiced countermeasures, have gotten caught, and whether they ultimately owned up to them or not, have found themselves immediately disqualified from a job they otherwise would have gotten (or worse).
 
Now I know you or someone else will immediately counter with "What about all those people who went into the polygraph, told the truth, and were called "deceptive."
 
As I have said many times, I know there is a false positive rate (I too have read the research).  That is why I strongly push a "point system." that treats ALL the subjective portions of the police applicant process equally.  Under a point system, an applicant can completely blow virtually any portion of the process (including the polygraph) and still get the job.
 
Food for thought
 
Nonombre

Ted,
My suspicion is that if the examiner feels the subject is not cooperating in any way they will “fail” the subject.  In my opinion that would include giving what the examiner feels is a deceptive answer to one of the initial control questions.  The examiner also might assume, if the subject is savvy enough to identify the control questions, that means they have researched the polygraph and are intending to use countermeasures.  To their way of thinking that probably justifies the “failure” on the exam.

It seems to me that polygraphers have set forth a pattern of behavior they assume to be proper for a polygraph exam, and if you deviate from that pattern you are accused of either deception or countermeasures.   

As far as how your test is likely to be scored, I haven’t the faintest idea.  Sorry.  If you told the truth you may have passed, or you may have failed.  Ironically the same is true if you were purposefully deceptive.  It all depends on how the examiner chooses to interpret the tea leaves.

Sergeant1107:

Do you think that an examinee would automatically fail the test, becasue he/she has freely lied to a control question without actually being steered into the lie by the examiner?  Is that considered a countermeasure ?   

In my case, I was unaware of countermeasures when I underwent a crminal polygraph test several months ago.  I answered "No" to one of the control questions without being prompted or steered by the examiner.   

There were three controls and three relevants from what I remember.  I was unaware of the difference between control and relevants at the time.  The reason I answered "No" in the first instance to one of the control questions, was becasue the examiner had steered me into a denial with the other controls discussed before hand.  I figured I would save him the effort of "Other that what we discusssed...", blah, blah, blah.

In regards to the 3 relevants, I was truthful and answered "No".

At the conclusion of my test, the examiner  indicated that there was a "problem" with the test.  He  indicated one of three things had occurred.   

A) He suggested I was guilty, 
B) He suggested I had knowledge of the crime, or 
C) He suggested I had something on my mind that I felt  guilty about. 

I denied his accusations and abruptly ended the meeting.  I am curious as to your thoughts on the outcome of my test.  How would the test likely be scored?  Would the elevated response to my control question cause a pass ?  Or would it be perceived as a countermeasure and scored as a fail?

ted wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 10:08pm:

Ted,
If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that nothing would really happen.  The examiner assumes that the subject is lying on the control questions.  If the subject actually does lie on the control questions the examiner will proceed normally.  I don’t think it would matter if the subject lies when first asked a control question, or if he lies after being grilled on one of them for a few minutes.

It’s actually an interesting question: Since the examiner assumes and in fact requires that the subject lie on the control questions, how do they handle someone who lies on the control questions right from the start?  Assuming, of course, that the examiner can detect the lie in the first place.

What still baffles me is this...

What happens during the pre-test, if the examinee chooses to lie to one of the control questions in the first instance.  Rather than providing an initial "Yes" response and then being steered into an eventual denial ("No").   

What I mean is, what if the examinee  answers "No" in the first instance simply because he/she has an unrelated issue (unrelated to the relevants) in their past that he/she doesn't want to discuss with the exmainer

Obviously, the examinee's response to that particular control question will be augmented.  Would the elevated response to the control question cause the examinee to pass assuming he/she was truthful to the standard 3 relevant questions?  Would the control response be interpretted as as countermeasure?

nonombre wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 3:06am:

Nonombre,
If the countermeasures or suspected countermeasures are preventing you from getting the proper responses from the subject, what basis do you have do assume that the person is deceptive?  It seems from your post that the sole basis for assuming deception is the use of countermeasures.

If a subject is producing odd responses which you suspect of being consciously augmented, and therefore you figure they must be using countermeasures, why would you assume that person is being deceptive?  

From your past posts you certainly don’t seem like one of those mindlessly hostile polygraphers, but rather a reasoned and articulate one.  Given that, I presume you’ve not only cruised the message boards on this site but also downloaded TLBTLD and read it.  Either way you must be familiar with the ideology of many of the anti-polygraphy people in that they feel the only way to pass, even when being 100% truthful, is to use countermeasures.

Accusations of purposeful deception directed at anyone suspected of using countermeasures, when you know that is not necessarily the case, seem like an unethically expedient thing to do for a profession that is “Dedicated to Truth.”

I can see how'd you think the guy was not cooperating; but to be so bold as to claim it purposeful, is well... as you pointed out, leading into the old "no you can't/yes we can/my dad can beat up your dad/mine's bigger" discussion.

All I know from personal experience is that my polygrapher was either lieing, thought he was a god (and wasn't) or was just an asshole.  Not saying that all you guys are.  Just the ones I've met.  I don't think I was officially  "PNC" but he did say I wasn't cooperating.  "You're breathing too fast!  You're breathing too slow!  You're controlling your breathing!  Stop thinking about your breathing!  You're not cooperating!"

my mental response: "asshole, now that you said don't think about my breathing -- guess what!!!  It's now all I can think about!  Tell me how you want me to breathe!"

Must be nice to end careers simply on unsubstantiated suspicions and mere allegations.  I hope the good you've accomplished in your life outweighs the damage you (your profession) have casued.

Nonombre:

If examiners can detect countermeasures then why do  examiners accuse examinees of using them who have never even heard of them?

Jeffery wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 5:06am:


Hey Jeff,

Nice to hear from you.  I'm sorry, but it is a little difficult to answer your question without desending back into the old , "We can and do  identify countermeasures,"  "No you can't,"  "Yes we can,"  "No, you can't,", "Yes, we can,..."  etc.   

Hopefully, without starting any fights here (hard to do).  I and the other examiners in my section have disqualified many applicants for PNC without any "confessions" of countermeasures.  We didn't need a confession, the countermeasures were just that obvious.

Okay, let the games begin.

Nonombre
   

nonombre wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 3:06am:


PNC?  That's a new one.  Without a confession, isn't it a bit to say somebody is "purposefully" non cooperative?  And if they confess... then isn't that "cooperating"?  I don't get it.

Is there a list of all the terms polygraphers use?  DI, NDI, INC, PNC? etc?