nopolycop wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 3:55am:


Naw!

sackett wrote on May 16^th, 2008 at 9:21pm:


You are coming around... 

nopolycop wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 9:22pm:


"n.p.c."

I'm astounded.  I actually agree with you.  But, I would also add that it is the willingness of the applicant to ignore illegal or improper (i.e. reportable) behavior that is being called into question, as well.

Sackett

In my opinion, it is the willingness to commit illegal acts for personal gain/pleasure (marijauna use) that is the issue.  Alcohol is legal, pot is not.

matsukawa8,

yours is the exact rationalization I have been talking about in the past.  It doesn't matter that you think marijuana is no big deal.  Or that you feel alcohol is a bigger vice.   

It matters ONLY that the dept or agency you're applying for, does.

Thanks for helping me make my previous points.



Sackett

I think alcohol use is a more threatening vice than marijuana, but regardless, for these type jobs, I would say that if you smoke dope a couple times a year it is not a big deal. I'd just like to see more progressive or "enlightened" thinking than I perceive in the hiring process. An individual who has smoked MJ infrequently in his life should not be disqualified. I'd like to see all of Congress and the President and his cabinet/advisors be polygraphed about their "drug" use if it's such a threat, danger, or immoral behavior/serious character flaw.

matsukawa8 wrote on May 10^th, 2008 at 3:25pm:

What qualifies as excess?

If you smoked pot twice in your life I agree it shouldn't matter on a law enforcement application.  A lot of present and former pot smokers disagree.

I have heard from people applying for a police job who dismissively stated that they used marijuana 2 or 3 times a week all through college.  They didn't believe that was significant.  Of course, when you add that up it translates to 400 to 600 separate instances of illegal drug use.  Every law enforcement agency with which I am familiar would consider that significant, and that candidate's application would be round-filed.

It's ridiculous that smoking marijuana even matters--unless you do it in excess. But that's what we get in our overly conservative and narrow-minded nation.

Want2BPO wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 7:01pm:


"close to the correct number" leaves doubt within your answer and probably caused the problem.  Let me try it this way.  If God was with us and I were to ask you, how many times did you smoke marijuana?  Now, you can estimate but if your answer is under the actual number of times, you will die.  But, if your answer is right, though it could be over by a small amount, then you are fine.  Would you have said 7 times in your answer, or perhaps more?

Sackett

P.S.  "Cullen wrote that you stuck to your guns, Good for you."  My thought was, did you get the job, or did you really "show them" by sticking to your guns and not getting the job?  If the latter, "good for you" is not the laudatory comment I would be making to you.

Quote:


What proof is there that a "reaction" on a polygraph machine unequivocally indicates "deception".  Polygraphers, ironically, are lying when they say it does.  Polygraphers on this board have admitted that the machine doesn't necessarily indicate deception.  Yet examiners make undocumented claims all the time (even on national TV).  So what does that tell you?   

If you were being sincerely honest, yet were accused of being "deceptive", a more LOGICAL conclusion would be that the problem is WITH THE POLYGRAPH, and not you.

You're playing right into their game by being so pensive about the test.

You estimated 7 times, and stuck to your guns despite repeatedly being asked the same question (which is typical of them).  GOOD FOR YOU!

That is why I said "7" times.  I honestly believe that is close to the correct number.  Why it showed deceptive, I don't honestly know.  If I had said "10" times, I would have been thinking when the question was asked, if I had over-estimated.  So I don't see how that would have helped either.  I guess I just don't understand how a polygrapher should expect me to know the exact number when it happened a long time ago?  That would be no different than asking a vegetarian how many times did they eat meat before deciding to become a vegetarian.

Want2BPO wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 6:45pm:


I never suggested you purposefully over-estimate to a ridiculous number.  I said estimate your use, then go beyond that to a number you know it can not be.  Meaning, a number which while higher than probable is a number you know it can not be but close (just over) to the actual number of times.  This relieves the anxiety of the answer and removes the threat associated with the answer.  

If you guess a thousand times and know it was about 3, you're right, it would be a lie.  But then again, why would anyone do that?

I hope this clears it up.

Sackett

I've been thinking about my situation, and have another question.  As Sackett suggested I should have admitted to a higher number at the pre-interview.  I can see the reasoning behind this, but wouldn't that also be deceptive as well?  If I said that I had done it an extremely high amount, when the question was asked I would also be thinking that I was lying about that amount.  So I don't see how anything but the correct number would have shown being truthful, which the best I could do was give an estimate because of the time period.

Twoblock wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 5:31pm:


twoblock,

I must say it has never been my intention to "annoy" anyone.  Enlighten, educate, contradict or clarify maybe, but never annoy.

As for writing much and (reportedly) saying little, I submit, the quality of any post is only as good as the comprehension and understanding ability of the reader.   

Sorry, I am not Ted K.  and I am certainly not nombre.  I post under my true name and give my statements as an accurate testimony of by beliefs.

As for my ego, I assure you it is large enough. As I did note your agreement the other day, I went back to re-read, since I thought I mistyped something...

Have a good one and enjoy the great white north...

Sackett

Sackett

I hate to burst your bubbly, but you do not annoy me. You are a good source of intertainment. I can lead you to the dipstick trough any time I want to. Evidence your response to this post which I may not be able to read because of my absence in the lower 48.

I get a kick out the way you can ramble so much and say so little. I have wandered many times if you're not actually Ted Kennedy in disguised as a polygrapher. Or maybe even nonmbre. All three of you think asphalt is rectum trouble. 

Even your machine might indicate truthfulness when I say I have really enjoyed our gigs at each other. Just shows that I can take it as well as dish it out and I'm glad there's no anamoosety between us. Hell, I agreed with once, which should have tweeked your ego.

If we don't meet again, I wish you well.

sackett wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 4:17pm:


Sackett, I can see how if wannabe was unsure of the # and felt he was admitting to the low side of the uses that it might cause him to react. 
However I submit to you that it may also be that the examinee, since he already claims it was in excess of 15 yrs may have some strong feeling about his drug use, and feels not only guilty but also fearfull that he will be viewed as a irresponsible person. Not to metion he must also be fearing that his chances of this job are considerably diminished by his past history. This MUST account for at least some of the "reaction" that cannot be linked to the "control" questions.

"Wannabe"

I was simply quoting your post.  I have no way to know what you said in your exam other than what you say here.  Of course, that is the danger of the pre-employment test related to determining frequency of improper behaviors.  If one does not know for sure, the applicant has to become comfortable with a number which is more than probable to ensure no reaction occurs during testing.

Furthermore, my presence on anti-polygraph has its purpose.  Mostly to annoy twobloc, Cullen, nopolycop, etc.  BTW, numerous professional examiners read this board often and probably make up most of the "lurkers" here.   

Whether you tell them the source of your information as sarcastically suggested by nopolycop is your decision.  I don't think it will hurt your chances of employment at this point. 

Sackett

I never said that 7 was the definite number either time.  Each time I said it was an estimate.  I don't know how she would expect me to remember an exact number when it was so long ago.

Want2b:

And, when you call them, tell them you got this advice from a polygrapher who posts regularly on Antipolygraph.org.  That ought to impress them.

You now understand the fraility of the polygraph.  Even though you believed you were telling the truth, little demons in the back of your mind were telling you, ("wait, maybe it was 8 times").  It is sorry to see you being disqualified, (if that is what occurs), because the polygrapher was incompetent, as Sackett implies.

Remember, the polygraph doesn't indicate truthfulness.  The result of a polygraph is simply the opinion of the polygrapher that the testee was being dishonest, because of some squiggly lines on a chart.  There is no scientific basis for that opinion either.  Good luck.  Maybe it is a department that doesn't put that much credence into the poly.

"Wannabe"

You first stated "about 7 times", then stated during the post-test that was it definitely 7.  The problem with trying to give a number to improper behaviour is that human nature leads most to minimize rather than maximize.  If you recalled 7 times BUT the number could be as high as 10 or 15 (for example), you will experience problems on the test concernng withholding information on drugs because you would be questioning your answer and know that it COULD be more than what you reported; therefore, withholding information.

During the examinations I conduct, I have the examinee give me a NTE estimate, even if it is too high.  That way, residual thought or concern over the number is discounted and no reaction would be expected.

Whether the statement and reaction by the examiner is normal, I would expect that since you had problems with the test at that topic and provided no answer to the inquiry, you will be considered DI without explanation and DQ'd.

If you really want to work there, you may want to call them back now and ask for a re-test or specific issue test concerning drugs and explain that upon reconsideraion your estimate during the test was low and advise them what the NTE number could be.  It might help.   

Good luck.
 
Sackett

P.S.  Lethe, I'll respond to you later.

I took a plolygraph last week and the usual questions were asked.  During the pre-test, I was asked about my previous drug usage and I told her I had used MJ about 7 times, and this was over fifteen years ago.  After taking the polygraph, she gave me the post-interview.  She said that I was being deceptive on the drug use.  She kept asking if 7 times was it.  I told her again that yes, that is my best estimate since it had been so long ago.  I stuck with my answer and she finally said, "Ok, we are done here."  Should I be worried about this experience, or is it normal?