Quote:


N.P.C.,

You probably already know this, but If a person fails a preemployment polygraph, there is NO follow up investigtation to confirm whether he really was lying or telling the truth.  The application is tossed, and the applicant starts searching for answers.

sackett wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 10:14pm:


Come on, give me a number.  What is the percentage rate?

nopolycop wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 7:49pm:


n.p.c./TC

what?  You don't know?  I thought you both had a better understanding of polygraph than that of a lowly examiner, such as myself...

Well, to fill you in, I don't know any official statistics because I haven't conducted the research, but I know they are fairly low percentage rates with myself and many of the examiners I speak with.   

How do we know? Because the outcome of investigations, further personnel review, admissions and confessions support my statement.  You have what?  A little research conducted in a controlled environment and even that indicating relative low percentage numbers which are then blown out of proportion here, in order to make the necessity of this board more relevant???   

Your point is weak and baseless.  Have a nice day.

Sackett

Quote:


With regard to preemployment tests, and according to the NAS report, frequent enough to justify NOT having the test!

But that would require LEADERSHIP on the part of politicians and bureaucrats who allow preemployment testing to continue.  They are the ones ULTIMATELY to blame!

Let the record show, however, that there have been some on Capitol Hill who have tried to do the right thing.  In fact, the NAS report was requested by Congress, I believe.  Sen Deconcini (R-NM) admonished congress on his way out of the senate for not acting on the report.

TC

sackett wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 2:05pm:


So, how frequent are false positives and false negatives?

Jim, what polygraphers evidently do not to care about is the plight of those whom they wrongly brand as liars, or whom they falsely accuse of using countermeasures. I don't think any polygraph examiner wants to make false accusations against innocent persons. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, it's inevitably going to happen--and more frequently than polygraphers care to acknowledge.

George,

I do not find that all examiners are careless in whom they accuse or suspect of using CM's or being falsely suspected of deception.  We (generally) do care about the results of every examination.  The problem is, like most tests involving human beings, the risk of false results is greatly outweighed by the accuracy and utility of the test.  We, as examiners admit there are false positives and negatives within our profession.  We DO NOT agree they are as frequent as you would like your readers to believe.

I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work. 

I think you are wrong and are repeatedly proven as such when claiming anyone who reads your book can easily beat the examiner.

So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.

No-one said the NAS was prepared and written by "know nothing egg heads", though I like your terminology.  Many of us simply dispute the intent and agenda behind the selected readings and research used in the paper.

Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.

You are certainly entitled to your evaluative opinion.

What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearly cannot be detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.

I have said many times here, CM's DO NOT beat the test, they beat the examiner.  If an examiner is trained in detecting CM's and stays on top of what you and the others teach, they are relatively easy to catch.  If, like I have also said, and which applies to many examiners, they remain complacent; they will be beaten.

...In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Citations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography of TLBTLD.

I am addressing readers of this board using what you teach on their own and employing CM's and beating the examiner; NOT, what a researcher can teach and instruct a novice in how to provide enhanced physiology in order to produce false readings.  There is a big difference between the two, and this research did not address whether the examiner was able to detect what they were doing in regards to CM's, only their effect on the test itself.

It should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.

George, how do you know what his ground truth was?  You accept everyone's tale of woe at face value as it supports your agenda; and without any proof or support.

You say this is a "very slanted board?!" How about PolygraphPlace.com, where you serve as a moderator, and where polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post?!

Polygrahplace.com was never and has never presented itself as an open board for anyone to post their opinions and statements about polygraph.  It IS a place where someone with an honest question about polygraph can get an honest answer from examiners without receiving an opinionated diatribe, like as experienced here.

Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.

George, lets be honest.  There is no debate here, there is only attacks on pro-polygraph supporters and then milk and cookies and the sining of Kumbaya for the so-called anti folks. 

It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist.

Most examiners are sensitive to CM's.  Many are hyper-sensitive.  I agree.  Most of this has to do with training.  Some are comfortable with their knowledge.  Some are paranoid and may very well see them where they don't exists.  This is an individual issue and no-one can control that.

Sackett

T.M. Cullen wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 1:59am:


Ms Cullen,

if you would take notice that I try to respond to as many "points" or opinions as possible (made by your folks).  I spend my time trying to answer yours and other's statements in an effort to avoind being called non-responsive.  Make up your mind!  If I don't respond you accuse me of avoidance, when I do respond you accuse me of "spending most of my time" attacking posters... 

Sackett

pailryder wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 12:39pm:


His understanding of polygraphy is deeper than that of polygraph practitioners because he understands that it has no scientific basis.

George
Is it Lethe's accusation that we are infantilizing our children that shows his deep understanding of our profession, or is it his suggestion that we should be put down like dogs?

Quote:


Especially when the person being tested held a TS/SCI for 20 years, passing BI updates every five years.

I guess I must have been a "security risk" all those years!  They should have polygraphed me sooner!

TC

sackett wrote on Apr 28^th, 2008 at 7:22pm:


Jim, what polygraphers evidently do not to care about is the plight of those whom they wrongly brand as liars, or whom they falsely accuse of using countermeasures. I don't think any polygraph examiner wants to make false accusations against innocent persons. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, it's inevitably going to happen--and more frequently than polygraphers care to acknowledge.

I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work. So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.

Quote:


Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.

Quote:


What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearly cannot be detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.

Quote:


Not so. In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Citations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography of TLBTLD.

Quote:


It should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.

Quote:


You say this is a "very slanted board?!" How about PolygraphPlace.com, where you serve as a moderator, and where polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post?!

Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.

Quote:


It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist.

Notice how our resident polygrapher spends most of the above post attacking the board and it's members, rather than constructively responding to Ohio99's post.

TC

Ohio9,

regardless of what they say on this board, examiner's DO NOT care who gets hired.  They do not make the hiring decision and have no(for the most part) vested interest in who gets the job.  They are simply looking for those that can report information, like on the pre-employment process, then test for truthfulness.   

People here make it seem that we take pleasure in keeping people out.  I am gleefully happy with those who are truthful and pass, rather than fail.  I want people to get the job they want, but they will have to be truthful to do so. (Now, be forwarned, my above  "I do not care" statement will again be taken out of context as if I "do not care"; period! Not accurately applied to the context in which I made the statement. But, ignorance does begat ignorance...)  "See Sackett doesn't care, Sackett doesn't care..."

Lethe has a bad habit of assuming he knows what examiners care about or feel; all, because it suits his warped observations of polygraph.  Truly a sadly misguided individual...

George will tell you that we, as examiner's have no proven ability to detect countermeasures, all the while not idetifiying any ability for the readers of his book to use them effectively, then when we are able to identify countermeasurse effectively has to modify his book to avoid those areas which may come back to haunt them.  How many readers have successfully employed countermeasures and "beat the examiner" to get what they want?  Don't know?  NO EXAMINEE HAS EVER PROVEN THE ABILITY TO USE OR EMPLOY COUNTERMEASURES SUCCESSFULLY, AS TAUGHT IN HIS BOOK.

Cullen, on the other hand is a simple minded angry man who has taken it upon himself to sarcastically attack polygraph whenever the opportunity presents itself.  His comments assist polygraph, more than hurt.

Ohio9, you are reading a very slanted board.  Take all information put here and consider it from the point of origin (to include mine), then make up you own mind.   

Many examiners are sensitive to countermeasures not for any other reason than that they interfere with the process and prevent us from doing our job accurately and for the examinee in the chair, at the time.  That job is simply to find the truth of the matter, nothing more. 


Sackett

(OK, anti folks, chum is in the water.... bring it on!)

Ohio88,

Okay, sorry!

Sounds like the polygrapher wanted to fail you either way.

It would have been much easier for him IF you had admitted to using CMs.

TC

T.M. Cullen wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:08am:


T. M., you don't seem to have read my initial post correctly.  I never admitted using countermeasures.  Not once.  And I still "failed" the test anyway.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:08am:


Sheesh now you're starting to sound like the polygrapher.  I already said I never admitted using countermeasures.  Not once.  Not even after he assured me that admitting countermeasures was the only way I would have a chance to get hired.

I have no regrets about my decition to stay honest and deny using countermeasures to the very end, but unfortunantly it wasn't enough to convince the polygrapher and I got kicked out all the same.

Quote:


He was lying.  He had NO INTENTION of passing you if you admitted to using countermeasures.  And that is how is turned out.

The test is a con job, and their goal is to get you to admit to something you have not done.

Interrogators coerce false confessions out of people all the time.  It's even easier for polygraphers, because, unlike some detective who coerces a false confession out of some innocent guy, with the polygraph there is NO  follow up or requirement for evidence to back up the confession.

You should have called his bluff.  "Look, I told you repeatedly I haven't use CM, and don't even know what that is.  Either pass or not.  Are we done here then?"

Quote:


NO NO NO!  Understand this!  You failed because you ADMITTED to using CM!

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Make NO CONFESSIONS, ADMISSIONS, or whatever, regarding relevant questions or anything that can hurt you.  They are there to con you, not help you!

Be COMPLETELY HONEST.  And if you are telling the truth, stick to your guns no matter what they say, or what they say the machine is saying!

TC

P.S.  It will be interesting to see what the resident polygraphers on this board will have to say, if they say anything at all.  My guess:

Sackett:  "Uh, well, you just got a bad polygrapher........"

TNLG4U:  "Take your spanking and get on with your life.  You are not entitled to a LE job!"

Ohio9,

You're not by any means the only person to have "failed" a polygraph by virtue of a false accusation of countermeasure use. The same thing happened to me, and like you, not only was I telling the truth and not practicing countermeasures, at the time I had no idea what polygraph countermeasures even are. See my statement "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph" for details.

Polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to reliably detect countermeasures. But that doesn't deter them from making accusations and badgering examinees for a confession.

Well one thing I've noticed from reading the other stories here is that most people say they failed the exam because of indicated deception.

In my case, it seems the only reason I didn't pass was because of an accusation of using countermeasures.  I asked the examiner if he detected any deception on any of the questions and he said no.

I'm curious to know if I'm the only person here who "failed" a polygraph test due to accusations of countermeasures after the test showed no indicators of deception on any questions.

Okay, listen to this one.  The last poly I took, the examiner first told me to relax, and then after a few questions, accused me of controlling my breathing, by virtue of rythemic breathing.  I laughed, and told him of course, if he wanted me to be calm, I needed to breath calmly.  We hit it off pretty well, and I ended up with a "pass" but no thanks to anything I did, except tell the truth.  It could have just as easily been a "fail" given what I have learned here.

Ohio, I know it sucks, but the good news is that you now are a whole lot wiser, and for the next time, take the advice given here and  you will likely pass.  Read some of Sarge1107 posts, he has been where you are at now.  He failed three, then passed the fourth.   

Polygraph is a  joke, and unfortunately, you were the brunt of that joke today.

These are bad people that we're dealing with.  Most of them--almost all, probably--originally started out good, just wanting to help society by catching bad guys.  But the logic of the polygraph is hard to stop and policy makers who'd been lied to and generally mislead about it started pushing for more and more polygraphs to be done.  After all, if it works on criminals, why not on employees?  That way, if someone turns out to be a bad apple your ass is covered.

The whole polygraph industrial complex gains it's own momentum after a while and it becomes almost impossible to stop, despite how much that might be warranted.

Anyway, polygraphers start out, most of them, really wanting to catch bad guys.  But, somewhere along the way, that changes to just wanting to catch people using countermeasures.  They measure success not by how many drug dealers or Iranian spies they stop or by how many honest candidates they pass but by how many people they catch--or think that they catch (as you've found out)--using countermeasures.  That becomes the yardstick for a good polygrapher, not the thing which was originally their job (catching bad guys).

Of course, sensible people realize that the general accuracy rate of the polygraph under ideal circumstances (which rarely exist outside of a laboratory), the difficulty of passing if you know how the test "works", and the number of honest candidates who feel they do have to use countermeasures to have a chance, means that many, many honest people are being failed.  (Somehow, that never factors into the cost/benefits analysis for the polygraph.)

To make themselves feel better, polygraphers generally blame the victims (i.e. you). Polygraphers are a strange class of people, generally devoid of compassion for those outside of their narrow guild and lacking in loyalty to any group above themselves (thus their self-serving lies to policy makers about how accurate they are).  They lie reflexively, even when they don't need to, are incredibly suspicious of outsiders (and, for all I know, of each other too, but maybe not), and enjoy the sufferings of those weaker than themselves.  These are all characteristics typical of sociopaths.  (But don't take my word for it--only polygraphers demand that.)

So, polygraphers are themselves victims of their own creation.  There is room for pitying them, but they still must be stopped.  They're like seriously abused dogs: victims of great suffering, but since they can never be reformed to play nice with others they must be put down.

What really got to me was the fact that the examiner never mensioned my irregular breathing until after the test was over.  He just waited till the end and then told me I was "cheating".

What didn't he just assume my irregular breathing was inadvertant and tell me about it as soon as it was detected so I could try to correct it immediately?

It's especially ironic after he spent the first 20 minutes assuring me his job was to "help me pass".

I am sorry to hear about your experience.  Unfortunately, the polygrapher who performed your exam is probably laughing at you right now.  He is probably rubbing his grubby little hands gleefully, confident that you were using countermeasures and that he got you.  He'll tell all his polygraph buddies about how awesome he is for "getting" you and ruining your career prospects--he's already got a career, he cares nothing for anyone else's (they literally say this, see here, for instance).

The purpose of the polygraph when used for screening purposes is to identify people who are not suitable for the job.  It's odd to a normal person then when they consider it a success when they fail a truthful, honest applicant; normal people would consider that a failure.  (I am presuming that you are honest in saying that you answered the relevant questions honestly and didn't use countermeasure).   

But, I'm not one to let everything I say be so critical.  Welcome to the club, Ohio9!  Our numbers are growing; time is on our side.  Be sure to  explain to your friends and family why you "failed" the test and to spread the information along amongst anyone else that you know who is applying or may in the future apply for a position which requires such a "test"

The polygraph is a cancer, eating away at society.  O that I were a surgeon!

Like many here I just had a horrific experience with a polygraph while trying to gain employment at a police department.   

In this case I passed the test with no indications of deception, only to be told I was being kicked out because I was using countermeasures.  This was a lie.  I had made no attempts to manipulate the test and did not know how to do so, but the polygraph examiner insisted I was using countermeasures.

His evidence?  He told me the test had shown highly "irregular breathing".  In some cases I had been breathing too fast, while other parts I had been breathing too slow.  As a result he was not willing to accept any explanation other then one involving countermeasures.

At this point he went into "good cop" mode, explaining to me that he didn't think I was a liar, only that I had been "misled" by websites such as this one into believing that using countermeasures was the only way to pass the exam.  He went on to say that if I just confessed to using countermeasures, he would note that in his report and there was a chance I could still get hired.

Suffice to say I rejected his advice.  I told him I was not using countermeasures and there was no way I was going to confess to doing so when that was not the case.  I continued to insist that I was not using countermeasures and had made no attempt to control my breathing one way or the other.  I also pointed out I had nothing to gain by sticking with my story.  Obviously he was going to ruin my career prospects if I did, so from the standpoint of self-benefit, confessing to using countermeasures would be the best option.  He brushed this off, stating "the anti-poly websites tell you to never admit countermeasures, so that's why you won't."

It was like talking to a brick wall.  I realized that he was not going to accept anything short of a confession of countermeasures use, so I finally gave up.  I told him one last time that I was not using countermeasures and him accusing me of it didn't make it true.  I realized by that point he was intent on ruining my career prospects, but I wasn't about to let him destroy my dignity and integrity too.

Well I think you can all guess how the story ends.  I got kicked out for what they called "deliberate non-compliance".  My clean background, lack of any criminal record, 1,200 dollars in travel expense to take the test, 6 years of service in the active duty and reserve military and 2 years of college meant nothing against the report of the polygrapher and his machine.

What a nightmare!  How is it that a machine can falsely indicate countermeasures?  And just how accurate can a polygraph be if something as simple as "irregular breathing" can interfere with the results?