Chuckles wrote on Aug 21^st, 2011 at 9:04am:

I guess it's a dog eat dog world and we all have milk bone underwear.

Stop trying to drag reality into the conversation Stephano! 

In my case I am taking the polygraphs to stay out of prison. I don't care at all what the "right thing to do" is anymore. All I want to do is humor the bully with the power to send me back to the slammer. 

The more I think about it, the more parallels I can draw between being a Jew during Nazi times and being a sex offender in the USA today. I would love to refuse to take the polygraph examination, because I have had two polygraphs be "proven" wrong by two subsequent polygraphs. I know for a fact and have proof that the polygraph is no more reliable than flipping a coin, but that doesn't make my future polygraph examinations any less mandatory.

George W. Maschke wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 12:57pm:

George, I am not so sure we can alter some universal ethics when we deem it to be in our best interest. Barring such fringe cases like lying about being a Jew in Nazi Germany or under the Spanish Inquisition, I would think that when the law of universality is appropriately applied, most would concur that lying is unethical. In fact, there are some who would say "lying is unethical period, regardless if George says it's okay on polygraph control questions."

So, as an exercise, let's walk such a person through a polygraph. During the pre-test interview, he may be asked "Before becoming employed with this company, did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" An examinee with the aforementioned ethic fiber would say "yes, of course, I'm human." Probing further, the examiner would try to solicit one or two admissions in order to get a 'No' answer. But this person could simply say "I'm not going to tell you every lie I've ever told as this has nothing to do with the subject of the polygraph."

The clever examiner would then attempt the Directed Lie testing format. However, being consistent with his ethic belief system, he would simply say: " I told you, I consider lying to be wrong, even more so when some dweeb orders me to."

Frustrated, he is tossed out of the polygraph suite with a big Inconclusive for refusing to cooperate. Being totally honest causes you to be untestable?--a most interesting paradox.

confused0323,

I have to disagree with stefano. I don't think there's anything unethical about lying when answering the so-called "control" questions. 

When answering the control questions, one should give the expected answer. It doesn't matter whether that answer is true or not. For example, if the control question is, "Did you ever lie to keep out of trouble?" the expected answer is "No." And that's the answer you should provide. If you do make any admissions, the polygrapher will exclude them from the scope of the question and try to get you to answer "No." For example the polygrapher may say, "You're not the kind of person who habitually lies to get out of trouble, are you? Other than what you told me, did you ever lie to get out of trouble?"

Quote:

Lying is dishonest; you should not do it under any circumstances. However, to reduce your chances of a false positive, apply the countermeasures described in TLBTLD to the control (comparison) questions.

Okay, just got through reading the section in the book regarding types of questions starting on page 86.  I think I get it but am still a but puzzled.

I understand the relevent questions.  I understand that you want your physiological responses to these questions to be less than your responses to the "control" questions.  However I am not sure how you are suppose to answer the control questions.  Do you lie since it states that the examiner expects you to lie or do you tell the truth but try to give off a physiological response that you were lying?

I hope this is making sense.  By the way, the book is a very interesting read.

Thanks in advanced