GeraldoGibbons wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 2:17pm:


That appears always to be inevitable, whether in "live" conversations or on-line threads!!  lol

To get hired, you have to pass all steps of the process.  This could include any or all of the following depending on the job:  the initial application and resume review, interview, aptitude testing, medical exams, drug testing, physical fitness test for positions like being a federal agent, security clearance background check, psychological exams, the suitability review, and yes....the polygraph.

An unfavorable result in any of the hiring steps will cause the applicant to get that thin rejection letter in the mail.  No matter how "innocent" the applicant claims to be.

The polygrapher doesn't make the final call during the polygraph phase.  The applicant's polygraph charts and session are reviewed by someone else who says yay or nay.  But these people have about as much power as the other hiring officials who review the applicant's results during the other steps.

Thanks for that input Stu. That is encouraging news for some applicants. My question though, was more focused on the same hiring agency.

I've heard many times the mantra that the polygraph is just "one tool in the selection process." But, I'm curious to know if this has proven true in any case. 

Has anyone failed a polygraph only to be hired since all other "tools" resulted in favorable outcomes?--or does the polygraph examiner hold the staff in his hand?

Yes, I have, but I was hired by a different agency rather than the one whose polygraph I failed.  Still got my TS clearance with other additional special access, without the stupid polygraph.

Quote:

Randal,
Allow me to augment your question and ask if anyone has ever been hired anywhere after failing a polygraph exam.

Has anyone ever failed poly at LVMPD and still got hired??

EJ, I think you meant to say, "Can you walk the talk". Anyhow, your opinion of me means a big fat '0' in my life.

You verbal fertilizer has been spread thickly all over this forum. You contradict yourself so much that I for one cannot take you seriously even when you are trying to be funny. 

I read the Trolling / Rat posts with interest and a big dollop of glee. I also noted your great consternation about who the rat may have been.
Interesting that you now ask me to rat on some of your fraternity.

You exhibit double standards, you talk double dutch, and you are apparently a double-crosser. 

Please dont patronise me. I am not anyone's 'girlie'.

candy wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 2:02pm:


Candy, you are simply lying about being told by "vet examiners" regarding the reasons for using the stim test. I and other examiners are  implicitly taught what the stim test is used for (there are listed reasons, and I stated those precise reasons on my post.) Care to reveal the indentities of those examiners which allegedly told you that the stim test is only used to convince the examinee of the accuracy of the test? Can you walk the walk Candy? 

Girlie, I am calling your bluff.

p.s. I will look for my DOD description of the reasons for the stim/acq test. Regardless of what George's bootleg paper says, my manual from 2000 (?) is very much to the contrary.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 9:41pm:


I love it.  George did not try to lie or deceive.  He used facts to prove that the STIM test or ACQT is in fact part of the scam.  EJ tried to use a large paragraph in an effort to continue the lie that polygraphs are not a scam.  Just more smoke and mirrors.  Good job candy on your research.

Twoblock wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 3:24pm:


I have tried to motivate exactly that. He's just so relieved that the problem is solved. He really likes his job and his boss is genuinely traumatised as well by the bungle. He has made up for it in spades. They all learned something from the nightmare. 
I would like to crush the examiners....., but have to let it go.

J.B.,

Thank you for the links to Verschure's articles. It appears that I was mistaken in my belief that the term "orienting response" is used exclusively with reference to responses to novel stimuli.

With regard to your following statement:

Quote:


note that this at variance with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, which reports (at p. 214), "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."

Although this is not related to the original topic, the following does address some issues that have been raised within it.

First off, I would highly suggest that those commenting on polygraph and the CIT read some of the more recent published research.

http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/research.htm

A startle response, as what is George described, is not necessarily that which is seen, and quite possibly is not.  

The orienting reflex is more plausible, but there still needs to be further research and independent replication (which I have found to be a common cliché of researchers and should be, as no theory is ever absolute).  This, simply put, is that stimuli with relevance (e.g. memory based) create greater orienting responses than stimuli that have no relevance (e.g. novel, non-memory based).  

There would also appear to be initial evidence that habituation and dishabituation might play a role.

Although deceptive and knowledge based polygraph examinations do have differences, there are inherent similarities in both when compared to the aforementioned.

Also, I have yet to see any research that definitively proves that "jeopardy" need be present.

What I have seen in the research is that a polygraph examination, at the least, provides the greater boost in incremental validity than any other method in its given application (e.g. eyewitness accuracy at discerning suspects, raw human ability to ascertain veracity).

Eric,

The U.S. Government's official how-to manual on polygraphy, formally titled the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook, avers that the key aim of the stim test (alternatively called an "acquaintance test") is to convince the examinee that polygraphy "works," stating in its glossary at p. xii:

Quote:

Quote:


for those of us who have made this conscious decision to avoid drugs in our lives, this sort of condescending assumption is very insulting and maddening. any cop who says this is just projecting the fact that he used to rock the ganja hard, or still is.

it is quite possible and very easy to not take illegal drugs.

Candy

I think that piece of paper your brother had to sign is worthless. Apparently this was a criminal case and a person cannot be forced to sign away his constitutional right to sue. Some might say the signing was voluntary, but it was coersed. If he had not signed, the polygrapher would not have given him the poly, same as refusing to take, and he would have gotten much more attention as a guilty party even though a poly can't be required.

Check with a federal lawyer in your area. Federal is the venue here because of a possible constitutional right violation.

Candy:

Get ready for a stream of techno-babble coming your way.  

Not so stupid as you may think EJ. I have been speaking to numerous polygraph vets in the past few weeks. The overwhelming feedback is that the stim test is part of the con job and examiners will take a bullet to the brain before they ever admt to the fact that for the most part, the examination per se is a con job deluxe. 

FYI, my brother caused a big stink over his 'failed' polygraph. The CEO agreed to retests of the 5 suspects, this time using a different examiner and a different approach. Well, well. A CVS examiner not only cleared my brother but secured a signed confession from a previously 'cleared' suspect AND money and merchandise was subsequently recovered.

The stim test; the silent answer test; the con verbiage. It was all bullshit. I simply wish that my brother had not signed confidentiality
agreement and legal waiver. A good stiff kick in the wallet is what's needed to put some of these people in their places.

My point is proven even before my crusade got a head of steam.

candy wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 1:17pm:

Not so Candy.
The stim test is used for the following reasons.
1. To familiarize the examinee with the sometimes nerve-racking"feel" of having the components attached to the examinee. Very important.
2. To familiarize the examinee with the tone of voice of questioning (monotone) versus the more articulate conversational tone of the pre-test. 
3. The concept known as "Individual Subject Specificity" is held during the pretest----in that say, an elderly person might have diminished galvanic reactions, so mental notes can be taken. I once tested a professional painter whose lungs were so damaged that his breathing looked like that of a dolphin's. Purely unscorable data noise. Additionally, some examinees have higher or lower threshholds for arousal, so the instrument sensetivity settings are done during the stim test---in order to extinguish "data noise" or to turn up those features which may appear on the screen as being too small---typically because a component is on looser than say, the last test ran. Keep in mind that all arousals are relative to each other, regardless of the individual's own homeostasis (balance.) 
4. To demonstrate to the examinee that the instrument can differentiate between stress and memory. I always showed the examinee their stim test---and they were often suprised that despite their nervousness, their charts were quite placid. People, even George himself, seem to be fixated on the notion that mere nervousness is what makes for "heavy ink." 
5. To familiarize the examinee and examiner the ability of the examinee to listen and follow instructions. We cannot give IQ tests per se, but the stim test can often times be a revealer of an examinee's mental awareness.
6. And lastly, the stim test is to help get the examiner mentally and logistically ready for the test. Many times during the stim test, I have noticed that I placed a component on the examinee too loose, crooked, or too tight. The stim test is like stretching for a runner. It is the closest to a warm up, or a dress rehearsal that we have. 


So, you are wrong in every respect about the stim test. Learn something---ignoring a veteran of the field for which you are researching is "gross stupidity." 

Ej

My research indicates that the Stim test is used to convince the examinee that polygraph is accurate, scientific and is able to differentiate between truth and even a teensy lie.

The stim test is in the same vein as the card trick and the silent answer test. The latter being an exercise in gross stupidity.

The blind stim test cannot be compared to a GKT because the one holds no negative outcome for the examinee, whilst the other does.

No science is involved. Just plain old dupery. A scam-sham of note.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 7:53am:


Aw, c'mon now Sarge, don't be modest. I know of no other poster who manages to use the word "ethical" in every post, as if under contract to do so. "Decorated Lawman, experienced, respected, activist, and moral authority on dialogue(see signature)." And yet you blush. Shucks.

What Barry C is to polygraph Place, you are to antipolygraph. 

EJohnson wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 1:07pm:


As I’m sure you are already aware, it is completely inaccurate to characterize the above-quoted question as “advice”.  I see you have now changed your characterization to “endorsement,” which is also inaccurate. 

My opinion is my opinion, no more and no less, and if you care to read through my previous posts (if you don’t want to you could ask Sancho, he already has) you would see that I have never given anyone any “advice” other than to tell the truth on their polygraph.  I have not suggested to anyone that they use countermeasures, and I have certainly never suggested to anyone that they lie.

Also, I don’t why you referred to me as the “official moral/legal authority” of this site.  I am a poster with an opinion, just like everyone else here.  The only people with “official” status on this site, I believe, are George and Gino.

Once again, I would ask that before you cite me as the source of oft-given advice you deem moronic, perhaps you could first ascertain if I have ever actually given such advice.

Quote:


Oops, I thought your were painting broader strokes about law enforcement beaurocracy---sorry.
As someone with a degree of knowledge in the field of Human Resources, I must contend that agencies use trickery to reveal emotional and native intelligences all the time. All the time. They use psychology tests, they ask trick questions like this one asked of me once many years ago;

"So Eric, if you came home to discover that you had a large pink and yellow elephant in your  backyard, what would you do?"

I answered, "I would call animal control and the press, as I have read elephants kill hundreds of people per year, and this one is unique enough to garner media attention during the capture."

The interviewer appeared disappointed with my answer with a wince and promptly told me "No Eric, the correct answer was that you would build a giant privacy fence around the animal in order to charge money for visitors to see it."

Greedy bastards. That wasn't the last time trickery was used to exploit a weakness or even a mere nebulous mood I may have been in during a tough interview.

I believe that one could make a strong case for the whole of workforce hiring as being filled with subjectivity, projection, and injustice (don't get me started about women and minorities being discriminated against.)---without the help of an admittedly odd but revealing test called the polygraph.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 5:04am:


No Eric, I was speaking precisely to LVMPD and the fact that they tell everyone after the poly they failed, (a lie, as I understand it).

Each officer must make the value judgment on whether or not pursing a police career is worth jumping through the hurdles.  I also submit that a police applicant should be treated differently than a common criminal, where it is a valid interrogation techinique to lie to the suspect to illicit more information.

Boy this sure got off topic...

Quote:


Sarge wrote some 2 weeks ago; 

Quote:


Looks like a ringing endorsement of mental countermeasures, as the official moral/ legal authority of antipolygraph.org has declared such "day dreaming---a visionary fantasy indulged in while awake---a mental diversion"----as ethical.

Quote:

You assume that examinee's can always automatically identify the relevant questions. More hair splitting ethics. 
Quote:

The stim test has several reasons for it's use. None of which are called gimmicks. A gimmick is something that has no basis in science, exists for entertainment purposes or to merely get attention, and should never be confused with a tangible value or deed----the very definition of TLBTLD (lol)
Quote:


I did not say the GKT was based on an orienting response. I wrote that the stim test was based on a "secondary orienting response"----in other words, it is a "recognizing response", not an initial response as is your "book slamming" analogy, thought to work via reticular activation, or memory recognition. Regardless, the blind stim test is the cousin of the GKT as it contains a "key" (the secret) and padding (non-relevant items.) Perhaps some more desparate conferance calls to your examiner friend/source are in order. You seem to know two things about blind stim tests and one of them, Jack,  left town.

Quote:


I would disagree with Dr. Rovner's assertion and/or statement regarding the "accuracy" of TLBTLD. You speak as if examiners agree with each other on all points.  What is breathtaking is the volume of information taken from DODPI/DACA manuals---much of which is spot on. It is the assertions that are moronic, and rather than rehashing the subject, I would invite readers to read the bulk of each polygraph examiner's postings. If TLBTLD was rightfully asserted, we wouldn't be here. Data and Logic are not one in the same.